Loading...
MEMO: ChamberFILE copy August 30. 2012 re: Use of Chamber building Issue: permitting the chamber of commerce to use a portion of the chamber building for other civic organizations. As you all know, Col. Hamrick deeded the chamber property to the City of Okeechobee in 1953, and a copy of that language is attached. The language that states "this deed is given as a permit to erect a chamber of commerce, to be used for no other purpose" would be considered a restrictive covenant under the law. This is different from a right of reverter. In a covenant, the use of land is restricted to a certain defined use, and if that covenant is violated, the original grantor, or heirs, can enforce that covenant by court injunction. In a right of reverter, title to land can actually revert to the grantor or his heirs, upon the happening of a defined event set out in the deed. The Hamrick deed contains no express or implied language that would cause title to the land to revert to the trust, therefore, if the trust were to construe the leasing of the chamber property to another tenant a violation of the deed covenant, their recourse would be the injunction. However, where there is no duration of time placed on the restrictive covenant, as here, the courts could determine it lapses after a "reasonable" passage of time, and the City could raise this as a defense'and request the court to remove this restriction from the property. Additionally, as the City previously permitted the Tourist Development Board to occupy the chamber building, with full knowledge by the trust, it could be a defense that the trust has waived their right to try to enforce the covenant. Lastly, the proposed use by Okeechobee Main Street, is in reality very little different from the functions of a traditional chamber of commerce. (definition and article attached), so another defense would be that this use in no way violates the restrictive covenant in any event. It is my opinion then, that if the City wishes to permit Okeechobee Main Street to occupy the chamber building, we are free to do so regardless of any objection from the trust. John R. Cook City Attorney HAMRICK & SONS, INC. ec�c ea&,le and deal 91tate, OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA 33472 R. E. HAMRICK J. H. HAMRICK PRESIDENT SECRETARY -TREASURER REGISTERED BROKER P. O. 601E 647 P. O. BOX ISO TELEPHONIC (613) 763-34SO TELEPHONE (013) 763-4247 November 9, 1984 Edward Douglas, Mayor Oakland Chapman Jim Knight Dowling Watford - Oscar Thomas ' Gentlemen: 1 Many years ago I gave to the City of Okeechobee that portion of land where the Chamber of'Commerce Building and the County Library now stand. This land was deeded to the City for the express purpose of furnishing a place for the Chamber of Commerce Building. The Chamber has notified me that they intend to build a larger building. to replace the present structure and are hoping to obtain a long term lease from the City of Okeechobee. It is my hope that the City will honor the original purpose of this gift and grant to the Chamber of Commerce a lease for 99 years to a point just west of the Library Building. Sincerely, R-E. iiamr�cl. C.C. Richard Fellows David Conlon RESIDENTS OF OKEECHOBEE SINCE 1917 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Page 1 of 2 Select Year: 2012 Go The 2012 Florida Statutes Title XL Chapter 689 View Entire REAL AND PERSONAL CONVEYANCES OF LAND AND DECLARATIONS Chapter PROPERTY OF TRUST 689.18 Reverter or forfeiture provisions, limitations; exceptions.— (1 ) It is hereby declared by the Legislature of the state that reverter or forfeiture provisions of unlimited duration in the conveyance of real estate or any interest therein in the state constitute an unreasonable restraint on alienation and are contrary to the public policy of the state. (2) All reverter or forfeiture provisions of unlimited duration embodied in any plat or deed executed more than 21 years prior to the passage of this law conveying real estate or any interest therein in the state, be and the same are hereby canceled and annulled and declared to be of no further force and effect. (3) All reverter provisions in any conveyance of real estate or any interest therein in the state, now in force, shall cease and terminate and become null, void, and unenforceable 21 years from the date of the conveyance embodying such reverter or forfeiture provision. (4) No reverter or forfeiture provision contained in any deed conveying real estate or any interest therein in the state, executed on and after July 1, 1951, shalt be valid and binding more than 21 years from the date of such deed, and upon the expiration of such period of 21 years, the reverter or forfeiture provision shall become null, void, and unenforceable. (5) Any and all conveyances of real property in this state heretofore or hereafter made to any governmental, educational, literary, scientific, religious, public utility, public transportation, charitable or nonprofit corporation or association are hereby excepted from the provisions of this section. (6) Any holder of a possibility of reverter who claims title to any real property in the state, or any interest therein by reason of a reversion or forfeiture under the terms or provisions of any deed heretofore executed and delivered containing such reverter or forfeiture provision shall have 1 year from July 1, 1951, to institute suit in a court of competent jurisdiction in this state to establish or enforce such right, and failure to institute such action within said time shall be conclusive evidence of the abandonment of any such right, title, or interest, and all right of forfeiture or reversion shall thereupon cease and determine, and become null, void, and unenforceable. (7) This section shall not vary, alter, or terminate the restrictions placed upon said real estate, contained either in restrictive covenants or reverter or forfeiture clauses, and all said restrictions may be enforced and violations thereof restrained by a court of competent jurisdiction whenever any one of said restrictions or conditions shall be violated, or threat to violate the same be made by owners or parties in possession or control of said real estate, by an injunction which may be issued upon petition of any person adversely affected, mandatorily requiring the abatement of such violations or threatened violation and restraining any future violation of said restrictions and conditions. History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ch. 26927, 1951; s. 218, ch. 77-104. http://www.leg.state.tl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App mode Display_Statute&Search String... 8/14/2012 This article addresses whether any private individuals own the City park, whether any such individuals have the right to control the City of Okeechobee's use of the Park, and whether it would be possible for a private individual to put the Park up for sale and attempt to sell the Park. While such preposterous claims should be ignored as outlandish, and would be in larger communities, this is an important issue for Okeechobee because the individuals have been successful in influencing officials and the newspaper to assert their interests by repeating these outrageous statements and claims. Like folklore and urban legends, with time it can become difficult for people to discern fact from fiction, particularly when it involves complex issues that most people do not understand anyway. From a public policy standpoint, the City of Okeechobee must protect its ability to govern, including its ability to exercise the plenary rights prescribed to the City to determine the use of public property. If we permit private, non -elected, unaccountable individuals to set procedures and policy for our municipal government, then we hinder our ability to govern ourselves with the democratic process. This analysis is based solely on a review of the documents that have been circulated by the trustees of the Hamrick trust, as well as a 1998 article written by trustee David O. Hamrick, in support of their contention that they own the Park and City streets, are entitled to dictate use of the Park by the public, and could sell the Park if they chose to. To avoid getting bogged down in 91 years worth of real estate technicalities, let's assume that the current ownership of the Park is one of the following: 1.) The City of Okeechobee owns the Park. ie; The City has fee simple title and can do whatever it wishes with it, subject only to City ordinances and state law. 2.)The City owns the right to use the Park, and the Hamrick trust owns a reversionary right. ie; The City has a dedicated easement which allows use, and the Hamrick trust has a reversionary interest which would cause the Park to revert back to them upon the occurrence of a certain condition, such as abandonment by the City. 3.)The Hamrick trust owns the Park. ie; The Hamrick trust owns the Park in fee simple and can do whatever it wishes with the Park, including selling it. The term "ownership" is not a very technical term, but is most often used to describe fee simple ownership. Fee simple is the most absolute and complete form of ownership and generally entitles you to transfer the property to another. This was the ownership of the Park that was suggested in a recent newspaper article, along with the assertion that the trust might put the property up for sale. Fee simple title was also asserted by David O. Hamrick in his 1998 article. This scenario should be addressed first since it is the most unlikely and easily dismissed. 3) Trust owns the Park in fee simple: This is actually the least advantageous for the trust because it does not account for the 58 years of use by the City. The trust asserts it acquired fee simple interest in 1947 through a Sheriff's Deed. The problem with this, is, you can't have someone else exclusively using your fee simple property for the better part of a century (particularly a city), without them acquiring title to it. The long history of use by the City of Okeechobee, which actually dates back to 1914, is undisputed and can not be ignored. The idea that the trust could put the Park up for sale is preposterous and should not be asserted by anyone desiring to have any credibility in this matter. Obviously, one can put up for sale something which they do not own, but finding a willing buyer and consummating the transaction is another matter. Would they transfer title by warranty deed" and promise to defend the title against the claims by the City of adverse possession or easement by prescription? Or would they "quit claim" their alleged interest and let the buyer sort it out? In either case, the transfer would be virtually worthless because of the claims of the City, which would require a lawsuit to quiet. This naturally leads to the second scenario as being the only possible, albeit dubious, claim by the trust in having an ownership interest in the Park and City streets. 2) The City owns the right to use the Park, and the Haunrick trust owns a reversionary right. Any claim to a reversionary interest in platted, dedicated streets and parks, is very tenuous, particularly after 91 years. From a public policy standpoint, no one wants to see a private individual claim an interest in public land. It was a common practice some time ago, when platting a city or subdivision, for the owner to dedicate the streets and parks to the public, and retain a reversionary interest. This means that if the public did not use the property, it would revert back to the dedicator. The purpose of this practice was likely to make sure the plat worked, the lots sold, and the streets were used for streets, so the owner wasn't just giving away his property with no benefit. The effect of the reversionary rights have been sharply curtailed over the years. Nobody wants to see a surprise ownership right spring forth from an abandoned city street 100 years later, into some unknown heir of the original dedicator who must then be found and given the street. Normally, without a reversionary right, and by common law, an abandoned street will revert to the abutting lot owners from the center of the street. This is the preferred practice, and a much better outcome than finding the heirs of the original dedicator, and giving them the abandoned street, to the exclusion of the abutting lot owners. As a result, it is well settled law in Florida that unless the reversionary interest is mentioned each time the lots are sold, the reversionary interest goes away. In the case of the streets of the City of Okeechobee, it is highly unlikely that over the course of 91 years worth of transfers of City lots, that any of the deeds continued to mention any reversionary rights. This means the practice of R.E. Hamrick in quit -claiming his interest in abandoned streets to abutting lot owners was unnecessary, but it was a way of asserting his perceived continuing interest in City streets. It was something he was permitted to do during his life because of his standing in the community. It seemed harmless because he didn't charge for it, prepared the documents and recorded them himself. This also means that the continued practice of the trust to quit claim interest in City streets for sums of money is contrary to the law, particularly given the circumstances under which it occurs. As for any other reversionary rights claimed by the trust, specifically regarding the Park, the only source of those rights would be the original recorded plat. To assert those reversionary rights still exist and belong to the Hamrick trust, they have to be traced through a convoluted series of assignments which are addressed later. If the rights do exist, which is doubtful, what does that mean? That if the use of the dedicated Parks should discontinue, they would revert back. Nobody has claimed the use discontinued, after all, the City is trying to use the Park and the trust is objecting. The claim is that the City is improperly using the park- ie; not for a public purpose. The 1914 plat does not say anything at all about what the parks should be used for, except "public use". It does say the streets should be used for "certain pillposes being limited to the usual travel of people, horses and ordinary vehicles ", but nothing about the Park. The only limitation on use of the Park is City Ordinances and state law. Any other limitation asserted as required by the Trust is purely the opinion of a private individual. Assume for the sake of argument that two things are true: 1) that there is a valid reversionary interest in the Park, and 2) that the City is improperly using the Park. What then? a) Someone, any citizen, could go to court and sue the City and try to make the City use the Park as they think it should be used. This would be a waste of time and money because there is no basis in the plat dedication, the City Ordinances, or state la\v that says a city, this City, cannot hold an event like the Speckled Perch Festival or a Farmer's Market in a city park. b) The Hamrick trust could go to court and sue the City and claim the City is improperly using the Park, that improper use is the same as abandonment, that it has a 91 year old reversionary interest in the Park, and it now belongs to them. This is equally wasteful, because regardless of the outcome, the trust loses: 1) If the trust wins the longshot case and takes the Park, it defeats the lifelong work and dying wishes of Col R.E. Hamrick, and in the process draws the wrath of the entire community. 2) If the trust loses, it puts to rest a decades -long and apparently delightful saga of claiming to own and exert control over the City of Okeechobee's public spaces. Trustees' claim of title -1914 Plat by the Okeechobee Company with reversionary rights in dedicator -Judgment by C.M. Highsmith against Okeechobee Company -Assignment of Judgment by Highsmith to Investment Holding Corporation, 1941. -Assignment of Judgment by Investment Holding Corporation to R.E. and Annie B. Hamrick, 1944 -Sheriffs Deed to Hamrick after public auction in 1947. (What was conveyed in Sheriff's Deed?) (The Sheriff's Deed, if it is valid, would only give title to what was held by the Okeechobee Company when it went under, which probably included a number of unsold city lots. The claim that it gave Mr. Hamrick fee simple title to all of the "parks, streets, alleys, or ways" described in the plat is a conclusion that is not expressly supported by the Sheriff's Deed.) -Lawsuit to enjoin City of Okeechobee from conveying a city block to the Chamber of Commerce, 1954 (This legal opinion is not readily available and it is not clear what it stands for. The trustees assert that it states: No legal title has been conveyed by instrulnent to the City, and since the filing of the plat in 1914, the City has not formally or official!)) accepted the offer of dedication) If the trustees rely on this language to invalidate the plat, the following may also be true: 1) The City could have accepted the plat in the ensuing 51 years constructively through improvement and use, and 2.) If there is no valid plat, there are no reversionary rights provided by the plat and the trustees must deal with 51 years worth of adverse possession by the City. The quoted language certainly does not establish ownership in the Hamricks, as suggested. Reliance on the 1954 case as establishing any ownership in Mr. Hamrick is also flawed because the suit was apparently to enjoin or stop the City from deeding property to the Chamber to build a dock, presumably down by Taylor Creek. Any citizen could bring such an action. Without an express ruling on ownership, winning the case alone means nothing, except that R.E. Hamrick, an accomplished lawyer, had such an issue 50 years ago with City authorities, that lie waged a three year lawsuit to express his opinion as to what the City should do with its public land. -Will of R.E. Hamrick dated August, 1978, in which he gave "to David O. Hamrick and H.G. Culbreth, as co -trustees, all of my reversionary rights involving parks, streets and alleys as shown in the original official map of the City of Okeechobee, Florida for the uses and purposes hereinafter specified." (The Will left all of the reversionary rights to descendants, whatever they may be. Neither the Will, nor the Judgment establishing the trust create or affirm any ownership in the City streets or parks. Any person could make a Will leaving all of their right, title and interest in the Brooklyn Bridge to their children and direct that a trust be set up to manage such interests. If the Will was validly executed, a trust could then be set up without ever addressing or certifying whether there was any such interest to manage. It is not the job of the probate judge, particularly if the Will is uncontested, to question or confirm title to the property passing. He just confirms the Will is validly executed.) -Judgment establishing trust as part of the probate of the Hamrick Will, March, 1992) (The establishment of the trust did not address what reversionary rights existed, if any, or what property was held in trust. It merely carried out the intentions of the will by setting up the trust. ) Insight How has this become an issue? Col. R. E. Hamrick was undoubtedly a notable figure in the local history of Okeechobee. He arrived around the time the City was founded, and held a number of different positions in the community. He was obviously a savvy lawyer and businessman and had a long and successful career during which he acquired considerable wealth and real estate. He apparently asserted during his life that he had acquired title to the City park, streets, and alleyways. Despite being an accomplished lawyer and carrying out some intricate and successful real estate deals, he did not take any legal or lasting action during his lifetime to confirm his title to the property being used by the City for public use. The alleged ownership of the City was more of a legend and legacy of his career, than a verifiable legal right, and that is what was passed on upon his death. What was also passed, possibly as a carryover from his 1950's three-year experience in suing the City, was the feeling that the City leaders were not capable of making wise decisions regarding City property. David Hamrick stated in his 1998 article, regarding he and his father's perceived ownership of the City park: "We dismissed the possibility of deeding it to the city or to some other continuing body for we had already seen what the city would have doze if they had ownership ". This is a pompous statement that implies that they know better than our elected City leaders, apparently any of them from the 1950's onward, how City matters and public land should be treated. The trustees of the Hamrick trust have repeatedly asserted that it is their duty to uphold the trust and to carry out the testamentary wishes of R.E. Hamrick. Nowhere in the Hamrick will, to the extent they rely on it, is any direction given as to what the city Park should be used for. The only limitations on use found anywhere on any document in the chain of title, is in the original 1914 plat which dedicated the property to public use, without any additional limitations. The definition of public use has been repeatedly defined in legal opinions over the past 91 years and the definition has become increasingly broad to keep pace with the changing needs and activities of our communities. There is no support whatsoever for the proposition that an event permitted by a city, and held in a city park, and open to the public, cannot include the vending of goods for profit to attendees at the event. The trustees' proposed uses of the Park, while not contained in any document in the public records, have been apparently based on the personal opinions of the son of R.E. Hamrick, who does not even reside in Okeechobee. If R.E. Hamrick, an accomplished lawyer who amassed a fortune in Okeechobee real estate, had the legal right and desire to prescribe a certain use for "his" park property, wouldn't he have done so during his lifetime, or put it in his carefully crafted will? Wouldn't he have recorded something in the public records during the 40 years between when he sued the City to stop it from deeding property to the Chamber, and his death? Why wasn't the trust instrument created during his lifetime? The only direction given to the trustees in the Will of R.E. Hamrick regarding the purported testamentary transfer is as follows: "I direct that my trustees and their successors do whatever is reasonably necessary to prevent the City of Okeechobee, Florida, from closing, abandoning or otherwise ceasing to use any of the parks, streets and alleys of the City of Okeechobee and, thereby, prevent reversion of the property." What have the trustees done to carry out this mandate? They have opposed the use of the park for the annual Speckled Perch Festival because it has included the sale of items by persons engaged in the business of selling their wares. The are currently attempting to prevent the City from using the city park for a market that includes the sale of goods. This opposition does not carry out the mandates of doing whatever is reasonably necessary to prevent the City of Okeechobee, Florida, from closing, abandoning or otherwise ceasing to use any of the parks, streets and alleys of the City of Okeechobee and, thereby, prevent reversion of the property." Rather this opposition is contrary to that mandate in that it prevents the City frorn using the park. Ironically, the lack of use of the park, or abandonment of it, is the only event which would trigger a vesting of the reversionary rights of the trustees, if any exist. So the action of the trustees could be perceived to be designed to cause the event which would result in the city park reverting back to them. Some insight into this scenario is evident from the following circumstances: In an article written in 1998 titled "History of the Hamrick Trust", David Hamrick stated: "On occasion, a few property owners who owned land on both sides of an alley tvoidd want the alley vacated for some particular reason and the City has been very.fair in vacating the alley and my Father- would usually give the abutting property a quit claim deed at no charge. He was an attorney and he usually drew the instruments himself and had them recorded without cost. " In recent years, the trustees have not only charged for such quit claim deeds, but have charged $25,000 to $50,000 to quit claim their "interest" in the alleyways. Many people who have purchased property and wish to develop over an abandoned alleyway have paid exorbitant sums to the trustees. This is not consistent with the practice or desires of R.E. Hamrick. With such profit being made on each alleyway, it is easy to understand why the trustees have taken no action carry out the mandate of R.E. Hamrick to prevent the closings and abandonment of such property. David Hamrick stated in his 1998 article that the current policy of the trustees is: "Iffor any reason it became necessary for any compelling reason to vacate the intended use, then the Trustees would take unencumbered title to the property and sell it for the best possible price and distribute the money to his heirs at law. " The trustees have been able to carry out this profitable practice with the streets by having relatives or employees in key positions to impose the requirements on unwitting citizens. It is also easy to understand why the same efforts are being made with the Park. U.ISTORY OF THE LLkN1R1C1S:"CRUST In 1914, while the area now known as Okeechobee City was still in St. Lucie County, and before what is now known as Okeechobee County was even a county, a Florida corporation known as ` Okeechobee Company became the owner of a certain parcel of land in Section 15,16,21, and 22 located in Township 37South, Range 35 Cast in what was then St. Lucie County, Florida. The Okeechobee Company drew a plat of a city marking out building lots as well as "Parks,.Streets ,Alleys, or Ways" which were plainly marked. (For the benefit of those who are really interested in the technical aspects of the plat a complete dedication is printed along with this article.) The plat was known as the "Townsite map of Okeechobee" and vas originally filed in Plat Book 2, page 17, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida, now filed in Plat Boole 5, page5, public records of Okeechobee County, Florida. In 1917 the County of Okeechobee was created by the Florida Legislature and the public records of the territory in [lie new County was transferred troni the original Counties of St. Lucie, Osceola, and DeSoto into the newly created Okeechobee County. Nly father, R.L. Hamrick, graduated from the University of Florida Law Scl►oc, in 1916 and moved shortly after his marriage to what was to become Okeechobee County. :Idler Okeechobee County was created by the Legislature, my lather who had been a school teacher and school principal before attending Law School, %vas appointed the first Superintendent of Public Instruction for the new county. The City of Okeechobee grew slowly during its first few years but by July of 1926 the City Council recognized the need for a City Hall and Fire Station. In a document recorded in Book 22, page 5 16 of the public record, the City %)f Okeechobee approached the Okeechobee Company for permission to build the two buildings on the land owned by the Okeechobee Company. The specific language used is as follows. "Whereas, Okeechobee Company does not desire to part with the title to the land liereinatler described, and the City of Okeechobee is 1villing to ;tcceot tl� of certain property ow -csl by Okeechobee Company it is mutually agreed by and between the Okeechobee Company and the City of Okeechobee that the City of Okeechobee shall have an easement upon the property liereinalter described upon the following teens and conditions." The document went on to describe one of the "parks" designated on the plat of the Townside ►nap of Okeechobee, ai►d specified that it be used "only and solely as a City Hall and a Fire Station". By this document the City of Okeechobee accepted [he easement offered by the Okeechobee Company. It is interesting to note that this was the only time, and the only part of the parcel, that the City of Okeechobee has ever formally or officially accepted. In the passage of time Florida experienced a great land BOOM and development co►npanics appeared and disappeared and the great depression ofthe late 20s and early 30s Look its toll on the area. The Okeechobee Company "went under" and a ►nan by the name of C.fA Higlismith ofPalm Beach, Florida obtained ajudgment against the Company. TI►is judgnle.ht is I'ecorded in Default and 1711a1 JU(jtg'111Ct1t DL)ok at pa,,e •132, records of Okeechobee County. Mr. Highsmith assigned the judgment to "Investment 14olding Corporation, it Florida corporation" in 1941. Nly parents, R.E, and Ajinie D. Hamrick, received assignment of the judgment from the Investment Holding Corporation in February, 1944 To finally execute the judgment now owned by my parents the major asset of the "Okeechobee Company" was sold at public auction in 1947. The major asset was the land owned by the Okeechobee Company in the plat area mentioned earlier in this article. The sale , contrary to what some of you may have read In the Okeechobee News, was ill pursuance of the laws of the State.of Florida. Notice was given of the time and place for five consecutive weeks in the local newspaper. My Father made the successful bid and was issued a "Sheriff's Deed" which Save him the ri'uiht "TO HAVE AND HOLD all and singular [lie said premises above mentioned and described, and hereby granted and conveyed, or intended so to be, with the appurtenances, unto the said parties of the second part, their heirs ofassigns, to the only proper use, beneiit and behoofof the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever." In short this Save my parents fee simple title to all of the "parks, streets, alleys, or ways" described iu the plat tiled by the Okeechobee Company in 1914. The Okeechobee Company tiled the plat in 1914--84 years ago. My lamiiy has owned the judgment on the assets since 1944 and the actual sherifl's deed since 1947--a total of 5 1 years. In 1954 the City Council, .vitilout the permission of* -lie owner, passed it resolution which Save to the Chamber of Commerce a city block on .vtllcll to build a boat dock. ( Bear in !Iliad- the City did not own the property athd had hlcvcr cvcn accepted all easenictht to use it ). My rattler vient to court and obtained an injunction against this action. i Ile City of Okeechobee then sued illy parents in Circuit Court c.ainling the city owned the land as a public user. "/Iy parents won the case and the Circuit Court said in the l INAL DECIZCL- "L`Ic) le tl title tth the o PQlrt has vcr l=11 Qouvetie l by instnuncnt to tllQCity of �hoheP neither since_tl_1e lili�la of tlie�ll It th OkPPcllobee Cotnnauv in I° l4 has I lie City of Oket•I1 lei i�lrn l hlly�r r�f7icially acce$?[e fie—oLt r of dPrli ion l r the Coll 1 p-al Y_.- 'rhe City appealed the decision to the appellate court and lost again. File City appealed to the Supreme Court and lost when in the June 1955 term of the Florida Supreme Court it atfirriled the verdict in favor of lily parents. That should have ended the question of owlhership once and for all. In the 84 years since the plat was Cited the Okeechobee Conhpany and its Successors and Assigns have continued to allow the City of Okeechobee to use the surface of those certain lands as "parks, streets, alleys, or ways" and the City has continued to use them for the purpose wllich the company intended. Because the City had use of the land, no taxes were assessed and the property has remained in Harmony since the Supreme Cou►� ruled. On occasion, a.lew property owners who owned land on both sides of an alley would want the alley vacated for some particular reason and the City has been very fair in vacating the alley and my I-atlier would usually give the abutting property a quit claim deed at no charge. Ile was an attorney and he usually drew the instruments himself and had them recorded without cost. My Mother died in 1970 and my rather died in 1990 at almost 101. In his declining years we discussed the parks, streets, alleys, and ways, on many occasions. He very much wanted the parks which run Cast and West through the City to remain parks. He thought, and I agree, that the series of parks in the middle of town was a distinguishing feature of the City and one which set it apa►-t lion► many of the other small coma►unities of Central Florida' We discussed the ownership of the land and how it could best be protected forever. We dismissed the possibility of deeding it to the city or to some other continuing body for we had already seen what [lie city would have done if they had the.ownership. In my Fatlier's will lie set up a TRUST which has become kciown as the "Ha►urick Trust" and t;►c two Trustees have been charged with responsibility to see that the parks remained parks, that streets remain streets, alleys reinain alleys , and `ways reulain ways. if for any reason it became necessary for any compelling reason to vacate flee intended use, then the T►tistees would take unencumbered title to the property and sell it for the best Possible price and distribute the money to his heirs at law. My ratlier owned the land and he could give it away if lie wished ( and he frequently did ) but the Trustees of the "Hamrick Trust" Bold the title for the heirs at law. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the Heirs at law and must ultill the provisions of the trust to the best of our ability. The Trustees si►are the intentio►, of my parents that all of the spaces %Vliicli have been enjoyed l'reely by the citizens of Okeechobee should continue to be so enioyed.