With its final judgment being passed on August 7th 1979, Title & Trust Company of Florida v. Barrows (1979) was one of the most publicized cases across Florida. The case was presented in the District Court of Appeal in Florida, First District before McCord and the acting chief judge, Larry Smith. In the case, land ownership and rights was the main discussion whereby the appellant Belden and Edith Barrows who presented the case to the District Court of Florida accused the Title and Trust Company, Florida, for the breach of their title insurance policy. They therefore demanded a compensation especially bearing in mind that the appellants had purchased the land through a realtor. Title & Trust Company however, did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the land especially because it was surrounded on three sides by private lands. Having purchased the piece of land (which is by the beach) for US$12,000, the appellants demanded its full custody and access especially after they were denied entry rights (Evans, 2001).
Issue
In the case, the appellants complained that they do not have the right of access to their facility especially bearing in mind that it is surrounded to three of its sides by private lands and a piece of land dedicated to St. John’s County to its right-of-way. They therefore, complained that they cannot access the land because of the platted street, which had poor water-way systems, making it inaccessible. The appellants consequently wanted to recover the money they had invested in the piece of land, $12,000.
Ruling
The District Court of Appeal Florida however, had a different view towards the appellants’ opinion. To start with, they argued out that according to the Florida Land Title Association and as judged in Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc., 288 N.C. 122, 217 S.E.2d 551 (1975), the right of access into a facility is the freedom and right to move into and out of the facility through its designated right of way without any unreasonable and unrealistic restrictions. They therefore ruled that the appellants had not been restricted from moving in and out of their purchased facility. Secondly, the insurance policy had not covered for any physical conditions limiting the appellants from accessing the land (Hinkel, 2008).
Analysis
Looking at the case from both perspectives, the standards relied and established in this case are the fact that the insurance policy and cover did not include the physical conditions limiting the appellant from accessing the piece of land or the purchased facility. At the same time, the Florida Land Title Association did not recognize this as a strong reason for appeal, unless there is a formal agreement for appeal between the two parties. However, it is also important to note that the District Court of Appeal Florida acknowledged the inaccessibility of the facility. At the same time however, the court stuck to the terms and conditions of the Title & Trust Insurance Policy, which only protected the land against any possible physical title defects, and not physical limitations to the land’s access.
Conclusion
This case has a number of significances especially to the legal system and its organization. To start with, it is important to note that as much as the appellant could not access the piece of land, the court of law still stuck to the fact that the insurance policy only covered the piece of land against title defects, and this is the fact upon which the judgment was based on. It therefore, shows the exercise of justice, not based on the fact that the appellant couldn’t access the land, but on the grounds upon which they sued the defendant.
References
Daniel F. Hinkel, 78-90. Essentials of Practice Real Estate Law. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (4th ed. 2008).
Mary, Evans, 116-120. Title guarantee, a Trust Co: Florida. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (1st ed. 2001).
