## Facts

- Mathew A. Marshall owned a large tract of land in Broward County, Florida.
- In 1926, a deed purporting to convey the tract from Marshall to Frank M. Terry was executed and recorded; the estate later alleged the signature was forged and the deed unauthorized.
- Marshall died without challenging the 1926 deed, and the family did not act for decades.
- Over many years, the tract was conveyed multiple times; Hollywood, Inc. acquired substantial portions, subdivided, and sold many parcels to numerous purchasers.
- In 1966, a family member discovered information suggesting the 1926 conveyance was fraudulent.
- In 1967, the estate’s administrator *de bonis non* sued to cancel the 1926 deed and unwind the subsequent chain of title (or alternatively obtain the property’s value), naming Hollywood, Inc. and downstream grantees.

## Issues

1. Whether the estate’s action to set aside the 1926 deed and disturb the chain of title was barred by laches and applicable statutes of limitation given the decades-long delay and intervening transfers.
2. Whether present record owners were protected as bona fide purchasers for value without notice because the challenged deed and subsequent conveyances had been recorded for decades.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Hollywood, Inc. and the other defendants.
- The court held the estate’s effort to cancel the 1926 deed and upset existing titles was barred by laches and limitation principles due to the extraordinary delay and resulting prejudice.
- The court refused to divest present owners because many acquired their interests for value without notice and relied on the public records.
- Title remained with the current record owners; the requested rescission and related relief were denied.

## Legal Principles

- Laches bars equitable relief when a claimant’s long delay, coupled with prejudice to others, makes it inequitable to grant relief, including in suits attacking old real-property conveyances.
- Limitation and title-repose principles support stability of recorded land titles and may preclude challenges to long-recorded instruments after extended periods of inaction.
- Bona fide purchasers for value without notice who reasonably rely on a facially valid, recorded chain of title are generally protected against later attacks on an ancient link in the chain, even where the original instrument is alleged to be forged or fraudulent.

## Conclusion

Because the estate waited roughly forty years to challenge a recorded deed after the property had been repeatedly transferred, developed, and sold to purchasers without notice, the court held the claim stale and inequitable; laches and limitation policies, together with protection of bona fide purchasers and reliance on public records, required leaving the existing titles undisturbed.


Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 236 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1970)