Ocean Beach Opinion of Title
-t
~
-,
~-",,-.........
OPINION OF TITLE
Mr. Claude A. Renshaw
City Manager
Miami Beach, Florida
Pursuant to your request, I have examined Abstract
of Title furnished me upon
Lots 14 and 15 in Block 9 of
Ocean Beach, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Plat
Book #2 at page 38 of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida,
said abstract consisting of items 1 to 122 inclusive prepared
under certificate #4896 of the Miami Beach Abstract & Title
Company covering that period of tim~,from the beginning to the
24th day of April, 1936 at 8 A.M.
Basing my opinion solely upon the abstract as above
set out, I find that the title to the above described property
was vested in the City of Miami Beach, Florida, a municipal
corporation of Florida under a Master's deed dated December 9t~
1935 and filed on December 13th, 1935 from Daniel Sepler as
Special Master in Chancery, said Master's deed being the culmina-
tion of a tax foreclosure suit in which the City of Miami Beach
purchased said property at said foreclosure sale, said title
being subject to the following:
I
A judgment against the City of Miami Beach in the suit
of Herendeen-Avery, Inc. et al versus City of Miami Beach dated
February 28th, 1934 and filed February 28th, 1934 in Chancery
Order Book #314 at page 471, said judgment being in the amount
ot $64.37.
II
A judgment against the City of Miami Beach in the suit
of Lee M. Rumsey versus City of Miami Beach, said judgment being
dated July 12th, 1934 and filed July 12th, 1934 in Chancery Order
Book #326 at page 159 and being in the amount of $48.65.
III
A judgment against L. F. Snedigar, et aI, in the ease
-1-
. .
->--::..:. '''''''~':-:
"": ,-'
of E. D. Keefer, et aI, versus L. F. Snedigar, et aI, said
jUdgment being dated April 3rd, 1936 and filed April 3rd, 1936
in Chancery Order Book #387 at page 260 and being in the amount
of $164.30.
IV
I am of the opinion that tax titles are the most
precarious titles known in law but that the title as above set
out was derived according to law as shown in the abstract above
set forth. I would suggest that the City of Miami Beach procure
from the former fee simple title holder, namely, M. M. Kane, of
the County of Dade, State of Florida, a quit claim deed to her
interest in said property. The abstract further sets forth that
M. M. Kane is deceased and C. E. Lyttle is the sole heir and
representative of M. M. Kane, and also held some interest in
said property, therefore I would recommend a quit claim deed be
procured by the City of Miami Beach from C. E. Lyttle in her
representative capacity and as an individual. This, in my opinion
is the cheapest, easiest way to cure any possible defects in the
foreclosure suit through which the City of Miami Beach derived
its title.
V
I am of the opinion that the restrictions contained
in the deed from Ocean Beach Realty Company to Edward B. Lent,
said deed being recorded in Deed Book #137 at page 94 of the
Public Records of Dade County, still attached to the above des-
cribed property and that the property 1s therefore subject to
restrictions and limitations of that daed.
VI
The property is of course subJect to restrictions of
the Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance wherever said Ordinance is
applicable to this property, subject also to the rights of anyone
in possession other than the defendants in the foreclosure suit
above described.
VII
Subject to mechanic lien rights, if any.
-2-
.
.........i~
'"
...".,
L.:.-..,., .
VIII
Subject to the u.auaJ.: clause in regard to the correct-
:]
ness of plats and surveys.
~ /-1'1.16
-3-