Case Name: Rosalie B. LOVEY and James Russell Thompson, Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a body politic and corporate, and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1962-06-05
Citations: 141 So. 2d 761
Docket Number: No. D-150
Parties: Rosalie B. LOVEY and James Russell Thompson, Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a body politic and corporate, and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, Appellees.
Judges: CARROLL, DONALD, C. J., and WIG-' GINTON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 141
Pages: 761–777

Head Matter:
Rosalie B. LOVEY and James Russell Thompson, Appellants, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a body politic and corporate, and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, Appellees.
No. D-150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.
June 5, 1962.
Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellants.
Watson & Watson, and Jack H. Green-hut, Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Plaintiffs have appealed from an adverse final decree denying their prayer for both a prohibitory and mandatory injunction against defendants. It is contended that the chancellor applied incorrect principles of law to the undisputed facts in arriving at the conclusion that the equities of the cause were with the defendants and plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief prayed.
This action involves the legality of an easement for a public road across a certain described parcel of land in Escambia County. The disputed road had existed in its present location for many years prior to the filing of this action. It appears on an official map of the county made in 1941, and is clearly revealed by aerial photographs made in 1951 and 1958. It provides access from a state highway to a community known as Weekly Bayou, and has been used by the public generally and by residents of the community which it serves.
The parcel of land across which the road is located was acquired by the federal government for military purposes in 1942, and was a part of a military reservation used by the federal government until the latter returned it to private ownership by conveyance to plaintiffs' predecessor in title on February 13, 1956. The federal government permitted the road to be used by the general public during its period of ownership in the same manner as it was used prior to government acquisition. In its quitclaim deed to plaintiffs' predecessor in title in 1956, the government specified that the conveyance was made subject to all existing easements and rights of way for roads, highways and public utilities. In acquiring title to the land in question plaintiffs' predecessor knew or was charged with constructive knowledge as to the existence of.the road and its use by the general public. Plaintiffs occupy no better position than their predecessor.
In 1953 while the parcel of land was in government ownership defendant County reconstructed the road and thereafter continuously maintained it uninterruptedly to the date on which this action was commenced in November, 1960. It is here noted that the first three years during which the County was engaged in the reconstruction and maintenance of the road occurred while title to the land on which it is located was owned by the federal government. The last three and a fraction years of county maintenance occurred after title to the land had been returned to private owner ship. It is dear from the record, however, that the total period of time during which the County engaged in a program of reconstruction and maintenance of the road extended over a period of more than four years.
The chancellor found from the evidence although the road was in existence and used hy the general public for many years prior to any action by the County, that the County nevertheless constructed and maintained the road for a period of more than four years within the meaning of F.S. Section 337.31, F.S.A. Appellants do not question this finding, and it is our view that it accords with a proper interpretation of the statute as construed by the Supreme Court in the Pasco County case.
The section of the statute on which the •chancellor relied in rendering the decree appealed provides that "whenever any road constructed by any of the several counties shall have been maintained, kept in repair or worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a period of four years by any county, such road shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the extent in width which has been actually worked for the period aforesaid, whether the same has ever been formally established as a public highway or not. Such dedication shall be conclusively presumed to vest in the particular county in which the road is located all right, title, easement and appurtenances therein and thereto, whether there be any record of conveyance, •dedication or appropriation to the public use or not."
Because of the County's continuous and -uninterrupted construction and maintenance •of the road in question for a period of more than four years, the chancellor concluded that under the provisions of the foregoing statute there exists a conclusive presumption that an easement for road purposes had been dedicated by the former owners to the public. Having arrived at this conclusion, the chancellor denied plaintiffs' prayer for an injunction restraining the County and the general public from allegedly trespassing on plaintiffs' land and mandatorily requiring the County to close the road and return the right of way to its former condition.
It is appellants' principal position that the court erred in concluding that the statute which creates a conclusive presumption of dedication was applicable to the period of time when title to the land on which the road is located was vested in the federal government. They rely upon the long established and well recognized principle of law that one acquires no right by adverse possession or prescription in lands owned by the government. This principle is grounded on the premise that government's title to land may not be divested by hostile or adverse user. Since no rights in government owned land may be acquired by adverse user, the statutory time for perfecting title by such means never comes into being so long as title is in public ownership. Appellants reason that if the period of time during which the County's activities occurred while the land was owned by the federal government is excluded, the proof establishes that four years of construction and maintenance by the County did not occur between the dates on which the land was reconveyed to private ownership and this action was filed.
If the premise on which the appellants' position is based is sound, the conclusion for which they contend would logically follow. There is a basic reason why this contention must be rejected. Both prescription and adverse possession are founded upon open, notorious, continuous, hostile and adverse use and occupancy of land owned by another. If the chancellor had found that the County's title to a road easement was predicated either upon adverse possession or prescription, appellants contention would have to be sustained. In the decree appealed, however, the chancellor specifically found that the County's easement in the disputed road was not based upon adverse user under the law of prescription, but accrued by virtue of a presumed dedication under the terms and provisions of the statute hereinabove mentioned. If the chancellor's conclusion is correct, it would follow that the principle of law on which appellants rely, and the authorities cited in support thereof, would be wholly inapplicable and have no bearing upon the decision. This is so for the reason that the acquisition of a road easement by dedication is riot dependent upon adverse and hostile user as defined in the law of prescription and adverse possession. On the contrary, title by dedication presupposes a use consistent with the dedicator's interest not one adverse or hostile to it.
Reverting to the statute under consideration it seems clear to us that the continuous and uninterrupted construction and maintenance of a public road by a county for a period of four years, gives rise to a conclusive presumption that the owner of the land on which the road is located has dedicated the same to the public for road purposes. The estate or title presumed to have been dedicated is that of an easement in the road right of way. The validity of the easement so dedicated is not dependent upon any record of conveyance, dedication or appropriation to public use. The statute under consideration is not one of prescription or adverse possession. Its purpose is to operate as a statute of repose with respect to the rights of way of roads or portions thereof that have been constructed by roadbuilding authorities of the several counties of the state under circumstances of irregularity in the acquirement of title to the rights of way wherever existing roads have been constructed and are being used. Although a statute of repose may be technically distinguished from a statute of limitation, the ultimate effect of each is the same. Their purpose is to place in repose the assertion of rights to which one is entitled unless such rights are enforced within the time limited by the statute. The general rule that both the United States and a state are immune from the operation of a statute of limitations is applicable where the state or government is the real party in interest. The right to assert sovereign immunity from the operation of the statute of limitations does not extend, however, to its assignee or transferee where the suit is brought for the priyate benefit, and to enforce the rights of a private person. As said by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the Brookfield case: "Some of the explanations which have been given for the doctrine that the statute of limitations does not run against the sovereign are stated in 37 C.J. p. 711. It is said that the sovereign ought not to be injured by the neglect of its officers; or, that the sovereign's time and attention are occupied by the cares of government and it must not be held to be negligent in its delay. It is also said that the sovereign will not be presumed to advance any unjust or oppressive claim. Even if the plaintiff could be regarded as a transferee or assignee of the sovereign's rights (which it is not), still none of the reasons for the sovereign's immunity from limitations would apply. Plaintiff seeks to enforce rights which it holds purely for its private benefit. The sovereign has no further interest. When these taxes were paid all of the sovereign's interest ceased, just as the sovereign's interest in land ceases when the sovereign conveys the land. Limitation will not operate to deprive the sovereign of title to land hut it will operate against its grantee who holds the land in a purely private capacity."
The distinction must he borne in mind between the right of a sovereign to interpose its immunity against the operation and effect of a statute of limitations asserted against it, and the right of a sovereign to plead the statute of limitations as a defense to a suit brought against it. In case of the former the sovereign's right to assert its immunity exists so long as it is the owner of the property which forms the subject matter of the action against which the statute is pleaded as a defense. This immunity may not be transferred to or exercised by the government's grantee or successor in interest. In the case where the sovereign has a right to plead the statute of limitations in defense of an action against it, such right inures to the benefit of its grantee or successor in interest and may be asserted with the same effect as could the sovereign had it continued as the principal party in interest. Since the real parties plaintiff in this case are individuals and not the federal government, they are not entitled to assert sovereign immunity against the operation and effect of the statute on which the chancellor relied in rendering his decree in this case.
It is equally established in this state that an act of dedication is usually affirmative in nature and need not be done by formal act but may be done by parol, may result from the conduct of the owner or may be manifested by written grant, affirmative acts or the permissive conduct of the dedicator.
The record before us reveals without dispute that the County commenced the reconstruction and maintenance of the road in question in 1953 when the land on which the road is located was owned by the federal government. The United States was as equally capable of making a formal dedication of an easement for road purposes as was any individual. It is seen from the authorities cited above that such dedication could have been effectuated by the execution of a formal document, or by permissive conduct and acquiescence of the government. The record reveals that the road in question continued to be used by the public after the federal government acquired the property in 1942. The government acquiesced in the continuous and uninterrupted use of the road during the entire period of its ownership. In its quitclaim deed returning the land to private ownership in 1956, the government specified that its conveyance was subject to all existing easements and rights of way for roads,, highways and public utilities. This exception not only recognized the right theretofore enjoyed by the public to use the road, but recognized any rights which the County may have acquired under the statute when it commenced in 1953 a program of reconstruction and maintenance of the road for public use.
Appellants strenuously contend that the exception in the government's deed to plaintiffs' predecessor in title applied only to easements and rights of way which had' matured as a legal interest in the land prior to the date of conveyance. They reason that since the statute was ineffectual to vest any rights in the county so long as the government owned the land, the public road easements and rights of way excepted in the government's deed had not ripened into legal title and therefore did not come within-the exception stated in the deed. While this-argument may have merit as applied to easements as a species of property, it loses its-validity when applied to the term "rights of way". The term "right of way" has been construed to mean not only a right of passage over the land of another, but is also used to describe the strip of land on which an existing road is located. It does not necessarily mean a legal and enforceable incorporeal right such as an easement. Thus in Koticlc v. Durrant the Supreme Court said: "Failure to describe the boundary of a right of way in granting an easement does not render the grant void." Since the government's deed specifically excepted existing easements, the additional exception of existing rights of way for roads must be construed as having reference to those strips of land on which existing roads were located at the time of the conveyance. It therefore follows that the road right of way here involved was in existence and use at the time the government divested itself of title to the land, and clearly came within the exception specified in the deed which conveyed the land to plaintiffs' predecessor in title.
We have not overlooked the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Palm Beach County case. That action involved a controversy between Palm Beach County, a governmental entity, and the South Florida Conservancy District, which was a governmental agency under the laws of this state. The county sought to maintain its right to an easement for road purposes acquired by it under the then existing statute similar to the one now considered in this case. The road easement claimed by the county was located on top of a levee constructed and maintained by the Conservancy District, which levee was used in connection with drainage and reclamation. It was there contended that the statute which vested in the county an easement under the theory of presumed dedication had no application when sought to be applied against lands owned by another governmental body. This theory was rejected by the Supreme Court whose decision specifically held that the county had an initial right to at least conditionally appropriate and use the levee for county road purposes so long as it was not needed for the purpose of drainage and reclamation by the Conservancy District which was charged under the law with the responsibility of constructing and maintaining drainage structures along the canal. That dispute was simply one where the county's right under the circumstances of its appropriation and use of part of a canal right of way and levee was required to yield to the paramount purpose of drainage and reclamation when the two claims came into irreconcilable conflict. The facts in that case are distinguished from those in this case since it affirmatively appears that the public use of the road over the parcel of land owned by the federal government did not interfere with the latter's utilization of its property for military purposes. There is no basis in this record to conclude that the County's use of the right of way for road purposes was in irreconcilable conflict with the government's use of the remainder of the land as a part of its military reservation. The government could have closed the road at the time it acquired the land in 1942, or at any time thereafter during its period of ownership. It likewise could have prevented the County from reconstructing the road in 1-953 and from thereafter maintaining it as a road for use of the general public. Since the government did not avail itself of the rights which it possessed to prevent further use of the road by the public, it must be assumed that such use of the land owned by the government was consistent not only with its wishes, but with its best'interest. The government's continued acquiescence in the use of its property as a public road, and the county's activities in constructing and maintaining it, are consistent with the statutory presumption of dedication and with an intent to except the road right of way from the land conveyed by the government to plaintiffs' predecessor in title. For this reason the holding enunciated in the Palm Beach County decision has no application to the case now reviewed.
For the reasons stated above we conclude that the chancellor correctly interpreted the statute under consideration, and applied it properly to the facts in this case. The decree is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD, C. J., and WIG-' GINTON, J., concur.
STURGIS, J., dissents.
. Pasco County v. Johnson et ux., (Fla. 1953) 67 So.2d 639.
. F.S. § 337.31, F.S.A.
. 55 ALR 2d 554.
. Sparks v. Pierce, 115 U.S. 408, 6 S.Ct. 102, 29 L.Ed. 428.
. Downing v. Bird, (Fla.1958) 100 So.2d 57.
. Pasco County v. Johnson, see footnote 1; Palm Beach County et al. v. South Florida Conservancy District, 126 Fla. 170, 170 So. 630.
. 40 Words and Phrases "Statute of Limitation" p. 95.
. 53 O.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 18b, p. 954.
. Brookfield v. Rock Island Improvement Co., 205 Ark. 573, 169 S.W.2d 662, 147 A.L.R. 451; Shumway v. State, 63 Ariz. 400, 163 P.2d 274.
. City of Miami et al. v. Jansik, (Fla. 1956) 89 So.2d 644.
. Bosell v. Rannestad, 226 Minn. 413, 33 N.W.2d 40; Moakley v. Los Angeles Pac. Ry. Co., 139 Cal.App. 421, 34 P.2d 218; Brightwell v. International Great Northern R. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 41 S.W.2d 319.
. Kotick v. Durrant, 143 Fla. 380, 196 So. 802.
. Palm Beach County et al. v. South Florida Conservancy District. See footnote 6.