Tillman Nature Preserve, LLC v. Babush, Dayflower JV, LLC
2D2024-1264
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.May 21, 2025Background
- Tillman Nature Preserve LLC (TNP) acquired a parcel in Pasco County, Florida, known as Sandy Lane, via three quitclaim deeds from John and Leslie Tillman.
- The Tillmans initially filed a quiet title action; after a motion to dismiss, additional adjacent landowners were joined as defendants.
- Ownership was transferred to TNP, which then filed a second quiet title action, specifically disclaiming any claims related to easements or rights of access.
- Dayflower JV, LLC—a named defendant—moved to dismiss, arguing indispensable parties (the Tillmans and the Estate of Edna Poche) were not included.
- The circuit court dismissed TNP’s action for failure to join these parties as indispensable, and TNP sought certiorari review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to join the Tillmans and Estate of Poche barred TNP’s quiet title claim | Not indispensable; TNP seeks only to quiet title; non-parties' interests unaffected | Indispensable parties because their rights may be impacted by adjudication | They are not indispensable; quiet title can proceed without joining them |
| Whether dismissing the complaint for failure to join these parties causes irreparable harm | Dismissal prevents relief, irreparably harming TNP | No irreparable harm; proper procedure was followed | Dismissal causes irreparable harm, warranting certiorari |
| Whether the court's order was a departure from the essential requirements of law | The law allows plaintiff to choose whom to sue in quiet title | Law requires inclusion of all interested parties, per trial court | The circuit court's order departed from the essential requirements of law |
| Who is an 'indispensable party' in a quiet title action | Only those whose interests are directly adjudicated | All with any potential interest must be named | Only parties whose interests would be directly affected are indispensable |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Florida Bd. of Trustees v. Carmody, 372 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2023) (summarizing certiorari standard).
- Glancy v. First W. Bank, 802 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (explaining distinction between necessary and indispensable parties).
- Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 942 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (outlining party status in civil litigation).
- Mazza v. Santoni, 855 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (party status based on pleadings and cause of action).
- Phillips v. Choate, 456 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (indispensable versus necessary parties in context of civil actions).