FRANCES M. LAUGHLIN, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORENCE M. KENT, JOINED BY PHINEAS KENT, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frances Laughlin appealed a foreclosure decree, challenging whether a portion of mortgaged property should be excluded based on alleged fraud in its description. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's foreclosure decree, holding that the chancellor's factual findings regarding the misdescription issue would not be disturbed absent clear error.
The court declined to address the legal question of reformation and instead held that the only issue was one of fact. The chancellor's decree would not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly showed it was erroneous, and no such showing was made in this case.
“the only question involved is one of fact, and that the decree of the chancellor should not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings by the chancellor in foreclosure cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees, Florence and Phineas Kent, filed a bill to foreclose a mortgage given by Frances Laughlin to the Kents' assignors. Laughlin answered by…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reformation Of Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees, as complainants in the Circuit Court, filed their bill to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant (appellant) to the assignors of the complainant. The defendant in her answer seeks to exclude from the mortgage a certain portion of the property described therein. The inclusion of such portion was alleged to have been brought about through fraud of the agent of the mortgagee. The right to such relief at the solicitation of the defendant does not seem to have been questioned by the complainants in the lower court, nor do they question it here. Evidence was taken before a master upon the issues, including that of fraud, and upon a hearing before the chancellor, a decree of foreclosure was entered in favor of the complainant. Under the circumstances, we are disinclined to answer the second question propounded by the appellant, namely:-
May a misdescription in a mortgage be reformed at the solicitation of the respondent, by affirmative answer, in a suit to foreclose the mortgage ?
We are in accord with the contention of appellees -that the only question involved is one of fact, and that the decree of the chancellor should not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous. This rule applies even where the testimony was taken before a master or examiner.. Lesnoff vs. Becker, 101 Fla. 716, 135 So. 146, and authorities therein cited. No showing has been made here that will justify a reversal.
The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered and ordered by the Court that the •decree of the court below be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
*282Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.