COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
R. DAVIS AND ANNA DAVIS, 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.
Commercial Credit Company sought to foreclose a mortgage executed by R. Davis and his wife. The defendants claimed the mortgage was procured by duress when the company's agent threatened criminal prosecution unless they executed the mortgage. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's finding of duress, holding that the evidence did not support invalidating the mortgage as a matter of law.
The Court held that the record failed to show facts warranting the mortgage be held invalid as a matter of law on grounds of alleged duress. The decree finding duress was reversed, and the mortgage was valid and enforceable.
“the defendants answered, each interposing a defense that the mortgage was procured by duress, the complainant through its agent and representative threatening to arrest and prosecute R. Davis, the mortgagor, for a criminal offense in connection with the handling of certain automobiles as a dealer, unless R. Davis and his wife would execute a mortgage to secure the payment of the amount owed”
Establishes the factual basis for the duress claim and the threat made by the creditor's agent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. Davis and his partner Walker owed money to Commercial Credit Company for automobile financing. The company's agent threatened to arrest and prosecu…
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 Valid Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the complainant brought suit to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants answered, each interposing a defense that the mortgage was procured by duress, the complainant through its agent and representative threatening to arrest and prosecute R. Davis, the mortgagor, for a criminal offense in connection with the handling of certain automobiles as a dealer, unless R. Davis and his wife would execute a mortgage to secure the payment of the amount owed by Davis and his partner, Walker, to Commercial Credit Company.
Upon final hearing the decree was in favor of the defendants, the court holding that the defense set up in the answer had 'been sustained by proof.
The evidence shows that the mortgage was executed several weeks after the proposition was first made to Davis by the agent of the complainant and that Davis had consulted counsel in regard to the matter and had been advised to make the mortgage to secure the payment of the debt, which he admitted that he owed.
The record further shows that when the mortgage was executed certain automobiles which had been repossessed by Commercial Credit Company from Davis and his partner were re-delivered to them and that of the amounts owing by Davis and his partner the indebtedness for those particular automobiles constituted a part.
The record shows a good and valuable consideration for the mortgage. The record indicates that Davis had been guilty of fraudulent and criminal acts in connection with his dealings with Commercial Credit Company. All parties to the transaction were sui juris and had had such business experience as to warrant the assumption that they were each entirely capable of taking care of their own interests and protecting their own rights.
It appears to us that the record fails to show such a state of facts as to warrant the mortgage being held in*521valid as a matter of law upon account of the alleged duress. The decree should be reversed on authority of Smith et al. vs. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163, 81 Sou. 154. Accordingly, the decree is reversed with directions that decree of foreclosure be entered for the balance due the complainants by the defendant E. Davis, including principal, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, as is shown by the record.
It' is so ordered.
Eeversed and remanded.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyler v. Hill Bros., Inc., 127 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1937)…that opinion do not present facts parallel to the case at bar. The decree appealed from should be affirmed on authority of Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163, 81 Sou. 154; Johnson v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224; Commercial Credit Co. v. Davis, 103 Fla. 519, 137 Sou. 688, So ordered. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur. '…
-
Mavis Y. Norris v. Monroe Stewart, 350 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…2] Aviacion v. Boy, 180 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2nd DCA 1965). There was no showing by Mrs. Norris that Stewart’s intimations were illegal. See Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163, 81 So. 154 (1919); Commercial Credit Co. v. Davis, 103 Fla. 519, 137 So. 688 (1931); Tyler v. Hill Bros., 127 Fla. 419, 173 So. 147 (1937), and Corporación Peruana, supra. AFFIRMED. BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERYIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Franklin v. Wallack, 576 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…f cases, that duress cannot be established by proof that a guilty person was threatened with criminal prosecution, where the threat has a connection with the demand for which compensation is sought.7 See Commercial Credit Co. v. Davis, 103 Fla. 519, 137 So. 688 (1931); Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163, 81 So. 154 (1919). Berber v. Berber, 466 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and Paris v. Paris, 412 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) cast some doubt on how strictly this rule is followed. But both…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1919)