Case Name: E. L. DUNN and John C. Nix, Jr., Appellants, v. J. E. STACK, Jr., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-05
Citations: 394 So. 2d 1076
Docket Number: No. EE-50
Parties: E. L. DUNN and John C. Nix, Jr., Appellants, v. J. E. STACK, Jr., et al., Appellees.
Judges: LARRY G. SMITH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 394
Pages: 1076–1078

Head Matter:
E. L. DUNN and John C. Nix, Jr., Appellants, v. J. E. STACK, Jr., et al., Appellees.
No. EE-50.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 5, 1981.
Edward T. Barfield of Reeves, Barfield & King, Pensacola, for appellants.
Donald H. Partington of Clark, Parting-ton, Hart & Hart, Robert G. Kerrigan and George Estess of Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Allen W. Lindsay, Sr., Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
MILLS, Chief Judge.
Dunn and Nix appeal from an order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their suit to quiet title of their leasehold interest in oil, gas, and minerals on and under certain property in Santa Rosa County.
There are many confusing facts and facets to the merits of the quiet title claim asserted below which need not be ruled on at this time. Suffice it to say, there was a prior quiet title suit filed by Matthew Barnes, as administrator of the estate of J. E. Barnes. By amended complaint, the heirs of J. E. Barnes and, perhaps, Thomas "Dick" Ates were joined as parties plaintiff. (The final amended complaint which was ordered by the trial court on 5 July 1972 and alleged in the brief to have been filed on 29 July 1972 is not in the record on appeal. Ates' name is included in the caption of the final judgment. Because the document was not necessary for our determination of the issue before us, we did not order the record supplemented.)
The purpose and result of the prior quiet title action was to clear from the title all of the claims by the named defendants which had come to cloud the title over the years. J. E. Stack, Jr., et al. are alleged to be the successors in title of Ates. E. L. Dunn and John C. Nix, Jr., were not parties to the action.
In a quiet title action, a person who is not a party to the action is not bound by any judgment rendered adverse to his interest. Section 65.041, Florida Statutes (1971). Therefore, the trial court did have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim by Dunn and Nix and should not have ordered the dismissal.
Appellees urge that Dunn and Nix should be bound by the earlier judgment because a lis pendens had been filed. No action on real property operates as a lis pendens until a notice of commencement of the action is recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court containing, in addition to other requirements, the names of the parties and a statement of the relief sought as to the described property. Section 48.23(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1971). At the time the prior quiet title suit was instituted, only Matthew Barnes, as administrator, was designated as the plaintiff. Although Zeda Barnes, Dunn and Nix's alleged predecessor in title, and, perhaps, Ates were later made parties, the notice of commencement was never amended to reflect that fact. Furthermore, the prayer for relief made no mention of quieting the title of Ates' leasehold interest.
Notice is limited to those matters in dispute between the parties to the action. It has no application to matters not in issue, not pertinent to any issue, and which cannot be determined in the action. Its operation does not extend beyond the prayer for relief. De Pass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77, 105 So. 148 (1925).
Even if the proper parties plaintiff had been named in the notice of commencement, that would not have given Dunn and Nix notice that the parties plaintiff might have adverse interests as to title to the property. In addition, the relief sought in the earlier suit was only to have title quieted as between the plaintiffs and the defendants. It did not purport to litigate the possible adverse interests among the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court does have jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by this quiet title suit. We reverse the order appealed and remand to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion.
LARRY G. SMITH, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., specially concurs.