## Facts

- John and L. Leona Meyer and Neil and Lucille Law owned adjoining parcels.
- Relying on an incorrect survey, the Laws built and maintained a fence for about 25 years that enclosed a strip of the Meyers’ land.
- The Laws believed the fenced strip was within their own property.
- Both parties held recorded deeds that reflected the true boundary line.
- Each side returned and paid property taxes only on the land described in its own recorded deed; the Laws did not return or pay taxes on the disputed strip.
- The Laws claimed title to the enclosed strip by adverse possession under color of title.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant can establish adverse possession under Florida’s “color of title” statute without a recorded written instrument, decree, or judgment describing the disputed land.
2. Whether long-term enclosure based on a mistaken survey can ripen into title when the claimant did not return or pay taxes on the disputed land as required by statute.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, quashed the district court’s decision, and remanded.
- The Court held the Laws did not acquire title by adverse possession under color of title because the statutory prerequisites were not met.
- The Court rejected the view that fencing and use of land for decades, standing alone, constitutes statutory color of title.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession in Florida is governed by statute and requires satisfaction of the statutory elements, not merely prolonged occupancy.
- “Color of title” requires a claim founded on a written instrument purporting to convey the premises in question, or a decree or judgment of a competent court; for claims commencing after December 31, 1945, the instrument must be duly recorded.
- A deed that accurately describes only the claimant’s own parcel does not supply color of title to an adjoining strip outside that description.
- Where the statutory scheme requires tax return and payment as part of an adverse-possession claim, failure to return and pay taxes on the disputed land defeats the claim.
- A mistaken boundary belief based on an erroneous survey does not substitute for statutory color of title or required tax compliance.

## Conclusion

The court held that a neighbor’s long-term fencing and use of an adjoining strip, based on a mistaken survey, does not transfer title absent compliance with Florida’s adverse possession statutes requiring recorded color of title (or applicable statutory tax-payment requirements) and the other statutory possession elements.


Meyer v. Law, 287 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1973)