Buy This Entire Record For
Pettis v. Chrisentery
Florida Court of Appeals, First District
October 24, 2017
GEORGE PETTIS, Appellant,
LESHAUN MERRITT CHRISENTERY, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF HENRY PITTMAN AND FANNIE PITTMAN, HIS WIFE, BOTH DECEASED, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF FRED PITTMAN AND MARY PITTMAN, HIS WIFE, BOTH DECEASED, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF LUCINDA HESTER, A WIDOW, DECEASED, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF ULYSEE PITTMAN, DECEASED, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF ROBERT PITTMAN, DECEASED, JESSIE PITTMAN (KNOW HEIR OF ULYSEE PITTMAN), GERTRUDE PITTMAN, ELIZABETH PITTMAN ROBERTSON, UNKNOWN HEIRS OF CHANCE JOHNSON, DECEASED, JOSIE LEE JOHNSON (KNOWN HEIR OF CHANCE JOHNSON), SADIE R. JOHNSON, LUCILLE BENTLY, ULYSEES JOHNSON OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, BENJAMIN JOHNSON OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, LUCILLE J. BELL OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, WILLIAM JOHNSON OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, LONGSWORTH JOHNSON OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, MARCUS L. LEWIS OR UNKNOWN HEIRS IF DECEASED, THE JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, THE UNKNOWN SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, CREDITORS AND ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING BY THROUGH NED PITTMAN AND/OR LUCILLE PITTMAN HADLEY, OR EDWARD ANDREW JOHNSON, AND ALL OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING BY THROUGH, UNDER OR AGAINST THEM AND ALL UNKNOWN NATURAL PERSONS IF ALIVE, AND IF DEAD OR NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, THEIR SEVERAL AND RESPECTIVE UNKNOWN SPOUSE, HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES AND CREDITORS OR OTHER PARTIES CLAIMING BY THROUGH OR UNDER THOSE UNKNOWN NATURAL PERSONS; AND ALL CLAIMANTS, PERSONS OR PARTIES, NATURAL OR CORPORATE, OR WHOSE EXACT LEGAL STATUS IS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING UNDER ANY OF THE ABOVE NAMES OR DESCRIBED DEFENDANTS OR PARTIES OR CLAIMING TO HAVE ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN AND TO THE LANDS HEREAFTER DESCRIBED, Appellees.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County. Wade
S. Eskuchen of Marianna, for Appellant.
Elizabeth M. Simpson of Marianna, for Appellees.
Pettis, the plaintiff below, appeals the adverse final
judgment in this convoluted dispute over the ownership of 60
acres of land located in "the East 1/2 of the Southeast
1/4 of Section 10 in Township 3 North, Range 10 West" in
Jackson County. Pettis' claim of ownership is based on a
chain of title that dates back to 1898 but contains deeds
with multiple problems, including 1942 and 1955 deeds that
have obvious scrivener's errors in their legal
descriptions and a "root of title" deed that,
on its face, conveys an estate in the land that the grantor
did not own. Pettis sought to reform the deeds, quiet
his title, and, if necessary, partition the property between
himself and Appellees.
trial court denied the reformation claim, concluding that it
was barred by the 20-year statute of limitations in section
95.231(2), Florida Statutes. This was error. The plain
language of this statute only bars claims
"against the claimants under the deed . . . or
their successors in title." Here, Pettis is a successor
in title under the deeds he is seeking to reform, and unlike
the plaintiffs in the cases relied on by the trial court and
Appellees,  Pettis is seeking relief in conformance
with- and not adverse to-the interests of the claimants under
the deeds. Thus, Pettis' reformation claim is not barred
by section 95.231(2). See Moyer v. Clark, 72 So.2d
905, 907-08 (Fla. 1954) (holding that quiet title claim of
successor in title was not barred by section 95.23, Florida
Statutes,  because the claim was not adverse to the
recorded deed), repudiated in part on other grounds by
Reed v. Fain, 145 So.2d 858, 871 (Fla. 1961).
we reverse the final judgment and remand for further
proceedings on the reformation claim. And because the trial
court's ruling on Pettis' other claims hinged on its
ruling on the reformation of the legal descriptions in the
1942 and 1955 deeds, the trial court will also need to
reevaluate the other claims- and the impact of the Marketable
Record Title Act-on remand.
and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ, CONCUR.
 The 1942 deeds described the property
being conveyed as the grantors' interests in the
South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10, rather
than the East 1/2 of that quarter-section. The 1955
deed described the property as being located in Township
6 North, rather than Township 3
 The 1955 deed-which Pettis contends is
the root of his title for purposes of the Marketable Record
Title Act-purported to convey fee simple title to an
unspecified 60 acres, rather than the undivided 6/8 interest