OCEAN VIEW TOWERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST FIDELITY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
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.
Ocean View Towers appealed a foreclosure judgment on a $3.6 million mortgage loan from First Fidelity Savings and Loan Association. Ocean View claimed an oral agreement with a Fidelity officer for an interest reserve modification and alleged Fidelity engaged in unclean hands by accepting fees without acknowledging the reserve. The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the foreclosure judgment. There were no unclean hands on Fidelity's part because while $65,000 lacked documentation, the $25,000 was documented as a non-refundable commitment fee for substituting collateral and extending the mortgage, not as payment toward an interest reserve.
[1] An appellate court must disregard conflicting evidence and accept facts in evidence which are most favorable to the party that prevailed below.
[2] An appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as long as there is sufficient competent evidence to support its decision.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a court of appeal must disregard conflicting evidence and accept facts in evidence which are most favorable to the party that prevailed below”
Establishes the appellate standard of review requiring deference to the trial court's factual findings when supported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOcean View borrowed $13 million and $3.6 million from Fidelity under a complicated loan program negotiated with Carl Guffin, a Fidelity officer. Ocean…
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 Oral Contract Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Ocean View Towers, Inc. (Ocean View), appeals from a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage securing a $3.6 million dollar loan entered in favor of First Fidelity Savings and Loan Association (Fidelity). Ocean View contends that the mortgage was part of a complicated and unusual program negotiated with Mr. Carl Guffin of Fidelity involving two loans: one for $13 million and the one in question for $3.6 million. The $13 million loan was successfully paid off; however, Ocean View defaulted on the $3.6 million loan. Ocean View alleges that the default was the result of Fidelity's failure to honor an oral agreement entered into with Carl Guffin prior to his departure from Fidelity which involved the creation of an interest reserve for the $3.6 million loan.
There is substantial conflict in the testimony regarding the interest reserve. However, there is no documentation either in letters or memos reflecting any agreement for the creation of an interest reserve.
In Blue Lakes Apartments, Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), this court held that a court of appeal must disregard conflicting evidence and accept facts in evidence which are most favorable to the party that prevailed below. Further, the appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as long as there is sufficient competent evidence to support its decision. See Diversified Commercial Developers v. Formrite, Inc., 450 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
It is well settled that a trial court’s discretion is abused when the judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable. Roberto v. Allstate Insurance Company, 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Judicial discretion does not mean that a court may act, or fail to act, according to the mere whim or caprice of the presiding judge, but it means a discretion exercised within the limits of the applicable principles of law and equity, and the exercise of which, if clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjust, when tested in the light of such principles, amounting to an abuse of such discretion, may be set aside on appeal.
Ellard v. Godwin, 77 So. 2d 617, 619 (Fla.1955), quoting from Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241, 247 (1930). Based on the testimony of the parties and the exhibits presented for consideration we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the judgment of foreclosure.
Ocean View also alleges that it paid a total of $85,000 in modification and commitment fees to Fidelity and that Fidelity’s acceptance of the fees without acknowledging the existence of the interest reserve modification constitutes “unclean hands” on the part of Fidelity and consequently Fidelity should be barred from relief.
It is certainly beyond question that “one who comes 'into equity must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of the merits of his claim. It is not essential that the act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned by honest and reasonable men.” Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla.1956). Ocean View takes the position that $65,000 constituted partial payment on the total of $85,000 required for commitment and modification fees. There is no documentation whatsoever regarding this $65,000, there is only the self-serving testimony of Ocean View. However, with regard to the remaining $25,000, there is correspondence between Ocean View and Fidelity documenting this as a non-refundable commitment fee paid as consideration for substituting collateral and extending the mortgage on the $3.6 million dollar loan. We conclude, therefore, that there were no unclean hands on the part of Fidelity.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ari Shahar and Daphna Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 125 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…n hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of the merits of his claim. It is not essential that the act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned by honest and reasonable men.” Ocean View Towers, Inc. v. First Fid. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 521 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla.1956)). Recently, this court found that unclean hands is tantamount to “[Unscrupulous practices, overreaching, concealment, trickery or other unconscientious conduct.” Con…
-
THE Mineo Salcedo LAW Firm. P.A. v. Loly Cesard and Yanite Jean, 333 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…Am., Inc., No. 97- 7014-CV, 2004 WL 5500705, at *15 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2004). As a result, if a party is found to have unclean hands, the court has more latitude to fashion its remedy. See Ocean View Towers, Inc. v. First Fid. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 521 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “It is certainly beyond question that ‘one who comes into equity must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of the merits of his claim.’” Id. (quoting Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717, 720 (…
-
Benn v. Sims, 543 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…t for that of the trial court. The scope of our review is to determine whether such findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence. Finding such support, we affirm. See Ocean View Towers, Inc. v. First Fidelity Savings and Loan Association, 521 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). ANSTEAD, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Storey Mountain, LLC v. Freestone Enter., LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
- Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987 (Fla. 1930)
- Beulah M. Ellard v. Godwin, 77 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1955)
- Blue Lakes Apts., Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Diversified Commercial Developers, Inc. v. Formrite, Inc., 450 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Dooley v. Gary The Carpenter Constr., Inc., 388 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1956)
- Gonzalez v. State, 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lang v. Lang, 457 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)