## Facts

- Klaus Zurstrassen and his brother, Rolf, acquired title to two vacant lots in Indian River County, Florida, intending to build homes and sell them.
- Klaus returned to Germany, leaving Rolf to oversee construction.
- A deed was recorded purporting to convey Klaus’s interest in the lots to Rolf; Klaus alleged his signature was forged and that he lacked knowledge of the deed.
- After Klaus returned to Florida, a realtor’s title check revealed Klaus’s name was not on the most recent deed in the chain of title; Klaus was not shown a deed and did not know record title was solely in Rolf.
- Klaus questioned Rolf and was told not to worry; the brothers then executed a written agreement stating record title was in Rolf alone but providing for sale of the properties and distribution of proceeds consistent with Klaus’s beneficial interest.
- Rolf later quitclaimed both lots to David Stonier, who was unaware of any claim by Klaus.
- Stonier conveyed one lot by warranty deed to Edward and Diane Wihlborg; the deed was initially recorded in the wrong county and later recorded in Indian River County.
- After Klaus learned the lots had been sold, he sued to quiet title and for related relief, asserting the deed to Rolf was forged and void.

## Issues

1. Whether, on summary judgment, Klaus was barred from asserting forgery and challenging subsequent purchasers’ title by equitable estoppel, waiver, or ratification.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Klaus’s knowledge and intent, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Stonier and the Wihlborgs and remanded.
- The court held that a forged deed is void and conveys no legal title.
- The court concluded the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that Klaus waived his rights, ratified his brother’s conveyances, or was equitably estopped from challenging title.
- The court found material factual disputes concerning Klaus’s knowledge of the alleged forgery and the inferences to be drawn from his conduct and the brothers’ agreement.

## Legal Principles

- A forged deed is void and passes no legal title, including to later purchasers claiming good faith.
- Equitable estoppel requires a representation (or conduct amounting to one), reliance by the party asserting estoppel, and a detrimental change in position; absent evidence of representations by the true owner and reliance, estoppel cannot be resolved as a matter of law.
- Ratification requires knowledge of material facts and intent to affirm; whether a party knew of a forgery and intended to ratify is generally a factual question.
- Summary judgment is improper where material facts are disputed, particularly on issues turning on intent, knowledge, waiver, ratification, and equitable estoppel.

## Conclusion

The court reversed summary judgment because the alleged forged deed, if proven, was void and because disputed facts about the owner’s knowledge and intent prevented resolving estoppel, waiver, and ratification as a matter of law.


Zurstrassen v. Stonier, 786 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001)