Summary
affirming dismissal of complaint for replevin by former tenant to recover crops planted on landlord's land and holding that "[a]lthough growing crops may be treated as personalty for the purpose of sale, they are part of the real estate until severed and follow the real estate unless specifically reserved"
Summary of this case from Lee Te Kim v. GalassoOpinion
No. EE-163.
November 18, 1977.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, William T. Swigert, J.
Hale R. Stancil, Ocala, for appellant.
Willard Ayres of Ayres, Cluster, Curry, Meffert McCall, Ocala, for appellees.
Appellant seeks review of an order dismissing its complaint with prejudice. After appellant was evicted from farm property he had leased from his landlords, appellees, he brought an action seeking to replevin certain crops he had planted during the first year of his tenancy, alleging that at the time of his eviction the crops were either mature and ready for harvest or were approaching maturity. Although growing crops may be treated as personalty for the purpose of sale, they are part of the real estate until severed and follow the real estate unless specifically reserved. Simmons v. Williford, 60 Fla. 359, 53 So. 452 (1910). We find no error.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
BOYER, Acting C.J., concurring specially.
I reluctantly concur in the result reached, but only because of the law that if the estate of a tenant is forfeited or the tenancy terminated by some act of the tenant, (which appears to be the case sub judice) he will not be entitled to recover the crops from the demised premises. 21 Am.Jur.2d "Crops", § 24 et seq., pp. 609-610