236 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1970)
In 1912 Mathew Marshall and Carl Weidling owned a large tract of land in South Florida.1 In 1913 they organized and incorporated the Atlantic Beach Company, transferred their property interests in the tract to the company, and received two-thirds and one-third respectively of the company's total authorized and issued stock.2
Mr. Marshall died in December 1923, leaving Louise Marshall as his widow and sole surviving heir.3 Mrs. Marshall was unaware of her husband's interests in the company and left the state within a month after his death.4 Frank M. Terry forged her name to an application for letters of administration, obtained the letters, prepared minutes of dissolution of the Atlantic Beach Company, and prepared a deed conveying all of the company's property to himself and others.5
Terry filed a petition in Broward County Circuit Court along with the minutes, and the court entered a decree dissolving the company in February 1924.6 The day before the petition was filed, Terry and the other grantees executed a deed conveying the tract to Hollywood Realty Company, which recorded the deed in April 1924 and later conveyed the property to Homeseekers Realty Company by deed recorded August 22, 1924.7 The company was not legally dissolved until September 14, 1936, by proclamation of the Governor for failure to pay capital stock tax.8
Homeseekers disposed of approximately one-third of the tract through sales and lost the remainder in a 1929 sheriff's sale to Highway Construction Company of Ohio, Inc., with the sheriff's deed recorded December 30, 1930.9 Highway conveyed its interests to Hollywood, Inc., with the deed recorded February 21, 1931.10 Mrs. Marshall died in 1945 and Weidling died in 1963.11 In November 1966 the petitioner, Mathew Marshall's brother, discovered the transactions, obtained appointment as administrator of the estate, and filed his initial complaint on July 13, 1967, followed by an amended complaint on April 5, 1968.12 The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed at 224 So.2d 743, and the Supreme Court of Florida granted review on the certified question.13
Whether the Marketable Record Titles to Real Property Act confers marketability to a chain of title arising out of a forged or wild deed so long as the strict requirements of the Act are met?14
The Marketable Record Titles to Real Property Act, Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, declares a marketable title on a recorded chain of title more than thirty years old and nullifies all interests older than the root of title, subject only to specified exceptions.15 The Act goes beyond conventional statutes of limitations, curative acts, and recording acts because it runs against persons under disability, invalidates interests rather than curing formal defects, and requires re-recording of outstanding interests to preserve them.16
Yes. Although the Atlantic Beach Company deed initiating the chain of title was forged, this deed formed but one link in the chain coming before the effective roots of title in this case as defined by the Act, namely transactions with either The Highway Construction Company or the Homeseekers Realty Company as grantors.17 Claims arising out of transactions, whether based upon forgeries or not, predating the effective roots of title are extinguished by operation of the Act unless claimants can come in under any of the specified exceptions to the Act.18 In this case, the petitioner fails to qualify under any of the exceptions to the Act, and therefore the petitioner's claims are barred.19
The Marketable Record Titles to Real Property Act confers marketability to a chain of title arising out of a forged or wild deed so long as the strict requirements of the Act are met.20