Case Name: TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee; COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee; TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellant, v. COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, and Trustees of Tufts College, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-03-21
Citations: 275 So. 2d 521
Docket Number: Nos. 41535, 41534 and 41534-A
Parties: TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee. COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellant, v. COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, and Trustees of Tufts College, Appellee.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., DEKLE, J., and MELVIN, Circuit Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 521–536

Head Matter:
TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee. COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellee. TRIPLE R. RANCH, INC., Appellant, v. COMPASS ROSE CORPORATION, and Trustees of Tufts College, Appellee.
Nos. 41535, 41534 and 41534-A.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 21, 1973.
Max F. Morris of Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, Orlando, for Trustees of Tufts College, appellant-appellee.
A. Duane Bergstrom and W. Scott Ga-brielson, of Rush, Marshall, Bergstrom & Robison, Orlando, for Compass Rose Corp., appellant-appellee.
Russell W. Layton, Orlando, for Triple R. Ranch, Inc., appellee-appellant.
Thomas A. Clark, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for Humble Oil & Refining Co., amicus curiae.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause reaches us on two interlocutory appeals and a certificate of the trial court which poses as dispositive of the litigation two questions raising the constitutionality of Florida Statute, Section 704.05, F.S.A. and, if constitutional, whether it operates retrospectively or prospectively.
By warranty deed dated December 8, 1943, recorded on December 23, 1943, in Deed Book 107, page 564, Public Records of Osceola County, Florida, appellant, Trustees of Tufts College, conveyed to Irlo Bronson and Flora B. Bronson, his wife, the fee simple title in and to certain described real property, together with the right to use said property for agriculture, horticulture, grazing, working trees for turpentine, cutting and removing timber and wood, and such other uses as the surface may be put to. The deed contained the following language and reservations;
" . . . subject, however, to the rights of Sun Oil Company under its lease hereinafter mentioned and those of the grant or or any future lessee or vendee of the minerals, oil, petroleum products and gas under the surface as saved, reserved and excepted in the following paragraph, and the rights of others to which this conveyance is made subject, saving, reserving and excepting out of the grant herein made all the minerals, oil, petroleum products and gas under the surface of the said premises with power for the Grantor, its successors and assigns, to take all usual, necessary or convenient means for working, getting, laying up, dressing, making merchantable, taking away and marketing said minerals, oil, petroleum products and gas and for the said purposes and for any other purposes in connection with the said reservations and exceptions, to make and repair tunnels and sewers and to lay, maintain, and repair pipes to convey water, oil, petroleum products and gas to and from any manu-factory, tank, storage building or receptacle, or other building or structure; to investigate, explore, prospect, drill and mine for and produce oil, gas and all other minerals; to erect and maintain telephone and telegraph lines, power stations and other structures thereon convenient for producing, saving, taking care of, treating, storing, transporting and manufacturing said minerals, oil, petroleum products and gas and the housing of employees, and further saving and reserving the right to use water and gas from the said lands in operating the same and rights of ways over the same for ingress and egress and to go from place to place on the said premises for the purpose of such investigating, exploring, prospecting, drilling and mining for and producing oil, petroleum products, gas and all other minerals, on foot, with or without vehicles and animals, and to construct, erect and maintain and use all such railroads, tramroads and other roads, privileges and culverts as may, in the judgment of the Grantor, its successors or assigns, be necessary or convenient to carry on the operation and use to the fullest the reservations and exceptions herein contained; to remove, either during the term of such operation, or any of them, or at any time thereafter, any property, buildings or improvements placed on or in the said lands by the Grantor, its successors or assigns."
The Bronsons conveyed the land by warranty deed dated August 31, 1944, and recorded December 2, 1944, to H. E. Brown, subject to all of the exceptions, conditions and reservations as set forth in the deed from the College. H. E. Brown, joined by his wife, conveyed to Jerry Brown and Buster Brown by warranty deed dated December 4, 1956, recorded December 15, 1956, who in turn conveyed by warranty deed dated December 30, 1963, to James Rooney. By quitclaim deed dated January 29, 1964, recorded on the same date, Rooney conveyed, subject to the reservations, to Triple R. Ranch, Inc.
The Trustees of Tufts College by instrument dated December 28, 1965, recorded January 10, 1966, conveyed Paul Helliwell an undivided one-half interest in and to all of the minerals, oil, petroleum products, and gas in and under the surface of and which may be produced from said real property, together with 100% of all rights of ingress, egress, exploration and each and every other right or privilege of any sort or nature reserved and excepted to the Trustees of Tufts College by virtue of the warranty deed from the Trustees to the Bronsons. Helliwell subsequently by instrument dated October 23, 1967, conveyed to Compass Rose Corporation all of the right, title and interest to mineral rights and other privileges conveyed by Trustees of Tufts College to Helliwell. The controversy in the instant action arose from the enactment of Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
During the 1970 Legislative session, the Florida Legislature promulgated Chapter 70-100, now carried forward as Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. the con struction and constitutionality vel non of which are presently at issue before us in this cause. F.S. Section 704.05, F.S.A., which became effective October 1, 1970, provides:
"704.05 Easements and rights of entry.—
(1) The rights of entry, or of an easement, given or reserved in any conveyance or devise of realty, when given or reserved for the purpose of mining, drilling, exploring, or developing, shall be limited to a twenty (20) year period beginning with the recording of such conveyance or devise if such rights are not exercised during this twenty (20) year period.
(2) After the twenty (20) year period has expired, the owner of such property may file a suit in the circuit court of the county in which the property is located, and upon such procedure as used in quieting title the court shall, upon proof of the nonexercise of such rights and the expiration of the twenty (20) year limitation, enter a decree forever clearing and confirming the removal of said rights from the title to the said real estate."
On November 30, 1970, Triple R. Ranch filed suit in Osceola County Circuit Court against Tufts College and Compass Rose alleging that by virtue of Section 704.05, it, the appellee, was entitled to the entry of a decree forever clearing and confirming the removal of the aforesaid rights of entry and easements as encumbrances on their title. In opposition, the appellants contended that the statute in question was unconstitutional, and appellants moved for dismissal and for judgment on the pleadings, which motions were denied. Subsequently, appellants separately sought interlocutory appeals to this Court.
1. Should Section 704.05 be applied retrospectively ?
2. If applicable, is Section 704.05 constitutional under the Florida and United States Constitutions?
All three matters are consolidated here for disposition. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause, Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution 1973, F.S.A., F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S.A. Jaworski v. The City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla.1963).
If Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S. A., is not to be applied retroactively then it will be unnecessary for us to resolve the second question since the statute will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case.
We find that the statute in question should not have retrospective application.
Historically, courts have indulged in the presumption that the Legislature intended a statute to have prospective effect only. The bias against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in the Anglo-American law. Coke established the maxim, "Nova constitute furturis forman imponere debet non praeteritas". (A new state of law ought to affect the future, not the past). Blackstone wrote that it was a matter of justice that statutes should operate in futuro. A statute will be construed as prospective only unless the intention of the Legislature to give it a retroactive effect is expressed in language to clear and explicit to admit of reasonable doubt. This Court in In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1, 83 So. 627, 631, 632 (1920), set out the following vitally important principle :
"A statute is not to be given a retrospective effect unless its terms show clearly that, such an effect was intended [citations omitted]."
"The rule that statutes are not to be construed retrospectively unless such construction was plainly intended by the Legislature applies with peculiar force to those statutes the retrospective operation of which would impair or destroy vested rights [citations omitted]."
"A statute should not, by construction, be given a retrospective effect when it would jeopardize the validity of the statute, or when it would make its application conflict with organic law. See McCarthy v. Havis, supra; St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Cross (C.C.) 171 F. 480; Graves v. Dunlap, 87 Wash. 648, 152 P. 532, L.R.A.1916C, 338, Ann.Cas.1917B, 944."
"A statute should not be so construed or applied as to make it conflict with organic law, when a construction or application conformable to the Constitution is practicable and the legislative intent is not thereby thwarted, since it must be assumed that the Legislature contemplated the enactment of a law that would conform to the Constitution, and that it would be applied to classes of cases in which it may be validly enforced. See Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Attorney General of State of Alabama, 233 U.S. 304, 34 Sup.Ct. 493, 58 L.Ed. 974; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, for Use and Benefit of Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306, 28 Sup.Ct. 537, 52 L.Ed. 804." supra 79 Fla. 1, at 632 of 83 So.
"The provisions of the federal and state Constitutions securing defined property rights against invasion by state authority are limitations upon the lawmaking power of the Legislature, as well as upon the powers of the other departments of the state government; and property not harmful in itself, that is legálly acquired as such by persons for lawful purposes, and not used, or designed to be used, for, or in connection with, or in furtherance of, an unlawful act or purpose, cannot legally be destroyed by the authority of a statute that is enacted subsequent to the lawful acquisition of the property, when such destruction is not expedient to conserve the rights of others or of the public welfare. The police power of the state is not absolute. It is subject to controlling provisions of the federal Constitution." supra, 79 Fla. 1, at 631 of 83 So.
With regard to the validity of retrospective legislation, this Court cited in McCord v. Smith, 43 So.2d 704 (Fla.1949):
"A retrospective provision of a legislative act is not necessarily invalid. It is so only in those cases wherein vested rights are adversely affected or destroyed or when a new obligation or duty is created or imposed, or an additional disability is established, in connection with transactions or considerations previously had or expiated."
We emphasize the language in In Re Seven Barrels, supra, that a statute should not be given retrospective effect when it jeopardizes the validity of the statute.
The interest involved in the instant case which would be divested by the retrospective application of Section 704.05 is a valuable property interest. When the surface estate and the mineral estate are severed, they remain independent. Possession of one does not carry with it possession of the other. In P & N Investment Corporation v. Florida Ranchettes, Inc., 220 So.2d 451 (Fla.App.1969), the District Court of Appeal, First District, determined that when the surface estate is severed from the mineral estate, the mineral estate is dominant and as such its owner has the right of ingress and egress to explore, locate and remove minerals.
Our Legislature has also recognized that severed mineral rights constitute a valuable vested property interest. Section 193.481(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides in pertinent part:
"(1) Whenever the mineral, oil, gas, and other subsurface rights in or to real property in this state shall have been sold or otherwise transferred by the owner of such real property, or retained or acquired through reservation or otherwise, such subsurface rights shall be taken and treated as an interest in real property subject to taxation separate and apart from the fee or ownership of the fee or other interest in the fee. Such mineral, oil, gas and other subsurface rights, when separated from the fee or other interest in the fee, shall be subject to separate taxation. Such taxation shall be against such subsurface interest and not against the owner or owners thereof or against separate interests or rights in or to such subsurface rights."
That a right of entry or perpetual easement is a property right is clearly stated in Glessner v. Duval County, 203 So.2d 330, 332, wherein the Court held:
"Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. provides that 'private property [may not] be taken without just compensation. ' That an easement constitutes property within the protection of the above constitutional provision has long been established in Florida."
Since valuable vested rights may be destroyed by retrospective application of Section 704.05, the rule that statutes will not be construed retroactively unless such construction was plainly and clearly intended by the Legislature applies with particular force to the construction of Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. There is no expression in this law which indicates that the Legislature intended for the statute to be applied retroactively. Every verb used in it is in the present or future tense. The statute applies to easements "when given or reserved" for the purposes of mining or developing and requires that they "shall be limited to a twenty year period beginning with the recording of such conveyances if such rights are not exercised during this twenty year period". The statute may not be relied upon until "after the twenty year period has expired".
The critical distinction between the Marketable Record Title Act and the statute in question is that under the former the holder of the right by mere expression may continue it. Section 704.05 contains no savings clause as is contained in the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, also Chapter 63-133, Laws of Florida 1963, whereby one affected could merely refile his claim to preserve it. Section 704.05, the law here involved, provides no opportunity for those in a similar circumstance to appellees to save their rights from forfeiture, or in other words, no savings clause which would provide a method for owners of easements in connection with mineral rights to effectively preserve their property rights. If Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., should be applied retroactively, it would give the affected persons no opportunity to avoid the consequences thereof by rearranging their affairs.
The language employed by the Legislature in the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, is substantially dissimilar from the wording in Section 704.05, and did indeed lend itself to a construction by the courts of retroactive application. Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 224 So.2d 743 (Fla.App.1969), 236 So.2d 114 (Fla.1970). The intent of the Legislature that the Marketable Record Title Act should affect past as well as present and future transactions was made clear by the language employed therein. Section 712.02, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., provides:
"Marketable record title. — Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who, alone or together with his predecessors in title, has been vested with any estate in land of record for thirty years or more, shall have a marketable record title to such estate in said land, which shall be free and clear of all claims except the matters set forth as exceptions to marketability in § 712.03. A person shall have a marketable record title when the public records disclosed a title transaction affecting the title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years purporting to create such estate either in:
(1) The person claiming such estate; or
(2) Some other person from whom, by one or more title transactions, such estate has passed to the person claiming such estate, with nothing appearing of record, in either case, purporting to divest such claimant of the estate claimed." (emphasis supplied)
Section 712, Florida Statutes, includes savings provisions whereby affected persons may protect their interests, and says:
"712.05 Effect of filing notice.— (1) Any person claiming an interest in land may preserve and protect the same from extinguishment by the operation of this act by filing for record, during the thirty year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title, a notice, in writing, in accordance with the provisions hereof, which notice shall have the effect of so preserving such claim of right for a period of not longer than thirty years after filing the same unless again filed as required herein. No disability or lack of knowledge of any kind on the part of anyone shall delay the commencement of or suspend the running of said thirty year period. Such notice may be filed for record by the claimant or by any other person acting on behalf of any claimant who is:
(a) Under a disability,
(b) Unable to assert a claim on his behalf, or
(c) One of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of claim for record.
(2) It shall not be necessary for the owner of the marketable record title, as herein defined, to file a notice to protect his marketable record title."
and Section 712.09 states:
"Extension of thirty year period. — If the thirty year period for filing notice under § 712.05 shall have expired prior to July 1, 1965, such period shall be extended to July 1, 1965."
In Biltmore Village v. Royal, 71 So.2d 727 (Fla.1954), this Court invalidated the retroactive portion of Section 689.18, Florida Statute, F.S.A., which attempted to place a twenty-one year limitation on re-verter rights and interests. Involved therein was a 1951 legislative enactment, Chapter 26927, Laws of Florida, cancelling all reverter provisions in deeds or plats in effect for more than twenty-one years. The act imposed a limitation on such re-verters and gave the holder one year in which to enforce his right under specified conditions named in the act. Holding the act to be void and unconstitutional as to the rights of the appellant and those in a like situation, this Court recited in Biltmore Village v. Royal, supra, at 728-729,
"In Sturges v. Crowinshield, [17 U.S. 122], 4 Wheat. 122, 197, 4 L.Ed. 529 and in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 A.L.R. 1481, 1590, the Supreme Court of the United States very clearly pointed out the law governing the obligation of contracts. The covenants in question were placed in the deeds for the benefit of the parties and the revert-er covenant set out ready means of enforcement for the benefit of each and every owner. Section 2 of Chapter 26927 cancelled the reverter provisions and is condemned by the quoted decisions.
. of the said act which provides that the holder of a possibility of revert-er may have one year from the effective date of the act to institute suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish or enforce such right. The trouble with such a savings clause is that it arbitrarily cuts off the right in one year unless suit is brought to enforce it. Such a saving provision affords no remedy to those situated like appellant, where breach of the covenant has not accrued, so as to actuate the enforcement of the right of reverter."
Under the rules of statutory interpretation established by this Court, Section 704.-05, must be interpreted as having only prospective operation. Thus, its provisions are not applicable to the facts in the instant case, and the suit to quiet title should have been dismissed.
In view of the foregoing disposition' of the cause we should not reach the question of the constitutionality vel non of the statute if applied prospectively.
However, we feel compelled to point out merely by obiter dicta that this statutory provision would have been more acceptable had it provided for a savings clause setting out a reasonable time and reasonable method by which the holders of such rights as are involved herein could reassert and refile their claims of reservation with the clerk of the circuit court at which time the limitation provision in the statute would begin to run over again.
Accordingly the Orders of the trial court denying appellant's, Trustees of Tuft's College, Motion to Dismiss and appellant's, Compass Rose Corporation, Motion for Judgment on the pleadings are hereby reversed. The first question propounded and certified to this Court by the circuit court is answered in the negative. This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss appellee's complaint against appellant's.
Tt is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., DEKLE, J., and MELVIN, Circuit Judge, concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.
BOYD, J., dissents and agrees with ERVIN, J.
. Smead, The Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: A Basic Principle of Jurisprudence, 20 Minn.L.Rev. 775 (1930).
. Scurlock, Retroactive Legislation Affecting Interests in Land, 1953, p. 9.
. See McCarthy v. Havis, 23 Fla. 508, 2 So. 819 (1887), State ex rel. Hill v. Cone, 140 Fla. 1, 191 So. 50 (1939), Laney v. Board of Public Instruction for Orange County, 153 Fla. 728, 15 So.2d 748 (1944), State ex rel. Bayless v. Lee, 156 Fla. 494, 23 So.2d 575 (1945), Larson v. Independent Life & Acc. Insurance Co., 158 Fla. 623, 29 So.2d 448 (1947), State ex rel. Riverside Bank v. Green, 101 So.2d 805 (Fla.1958), Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Brooks-Fisher Insulating Co., 140 So.2d 613 (Fla.App.1962), Schonfield v. City of Coral Gables, 174 So.2d 453, Fla.App., cert. disch., 183 So.2d 682, Fla., Heberle v. P.R.O. Liquidating Co., 186 So.2d 280 (Fla.App.1966).