RIVERS
v.
AMARA
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.
This case involves a dispute over a mortgage for a house construction. The court partially reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the mortgagors should not be responsible for the mortgagee's attorney's fees due to the mortgagee's breach of the construction contract.
No, the mortgagors should not be held liable for the mortgagee's attorney's fees or the Master's fee. The mortgagee's breach of the construction contract excuses the mortgagor's default and prevents the mortgagee from recovering these costs.
“Equity abhors a forfeiture and will not allow one who is guilty of a breach of duty to gain an undue advantage by reason thereof.”
Establishes the equitable principle guiding the court's decision regarding the mortgagee's breach.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued to cancel a mortgage given to secure construction costs. The defendant counterclaimed for foreclosure. The Master found the mortgage s…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
Suit by Arthur F. Rivers and Marguerite Rivers, his wife, against Philip Amara for cancellation of a mortgage, wherein defendant counterclaimed seeking foreclosure. From the decree, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed in part, and affirmed in part. The appellants brought a bill seeking a cancellation of a mortgage, whereupon the defendant answered and filed a counterclaim seeking foreclosure of the mortgage. The cause was referred to a Master, who found that the mortgage was given to secure the cost of construction of a dwelling to be built by the appellee but that the building was not built according to the contract and that the mortgage should be cancelled. The Chancellor found that the sum of $1300 would offset the faulty construction and decreed a foreclosure for the balance, allowing the Master a fee of $150 and the defendant $300 for attorney's fee for the foreclosure.
We fail to find that the Chancellor has erred as to his offset of $1300 but are of the opinion that the plaintiffs-appellants should not be held liable for the payment of an attorney's fee for the foreclosure of the mortgage. Equity abhors a forfeiture and will not allow one who is guilty of a breach of duty to gain an undue advantage by reason thereof. The construction of the house and the execution of the mortgage to secure the unpaid purchase price grew out of the same general transaction. The mortgagee breached his building contract with the mortgagor when he constructed the dwelling in a defective manner. It was this breach that brought about the mortgagor's refusal to pay any further installments on the mortgage until the defects had been corrected or due allowances made. Under such circumstances the mortgagor should not be held in a court of equity to have breached the mortgage in such a manner as to authorize the mortgagee to accelerate the mortgage or incur an attorney's fee for which the mortgagor would be liable. Neither should the plaintiffs be taxed for the costs of the suit, including the Master's fee, by reason of the foregoing facts and other facts and circumstances appearing. Otherwise, as between the plaintiffs and defendant, matters seem to be equal.
After allowing and applying as a credit the $1300 found by the Chancellor to be due the mortgagors by reason of the mortgagee's faulty construction of the building, the mortgagors should be allowed a reasonable time within which to make such other payments as might be due according to the terms of the mortgage (if any) and, if not paid, then the mortgage lien of defendant should be ordered foreclosed and the property sold to satisfy the mortgage lien because of the defaults of the mortgagor-appellant; *Page 365 but should such credits and payments have the effect of discharging all obligations then due, the defendant's counterclaim should be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. City of N. Miami Beach, 69 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1953)…abhors a forfeiture. This is all the more true when the forfeiture is against the public. Many of the cases hold that such a forfeiture will not be permitted without notice and a chance to comply. 19 Am.Jur., Equity, Sec. 84; Rivers v. Amara, Fla., 40 So. 2d 364; Treat v. Detroit United Ry., 157 Mich. 320, 122 N.W. 93, 133 Am.St.Rep. 347; Reynolds v. City of Alice, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W. 2d 455; Douglass v. City Council of Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 24 So. 745, 43 L.R.A. 376. In this case complainant not onl…
-
Torres v. K-Site 500 Assocs. & Chicago Title Ins. Co., 632 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…2d 389 (Fla.1964). Equity abhors forfeiture, and a party entitled to a forfeiture may be estopped from asserting that right, if the result would be unconscionable. Dade County v. City of North Miami Beach, 69 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1953); Rivers v. Amara, 40 So. 2d 364 (Fla.1949); White v. Brousseau, 566 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Clearly it would be unconscionable to allow a forfeiture of the deposit, where the seller’s conduct indicated acquiescence in the asserted breach, and where the buyers did proceed d…
-
Gosta Tollius v. Dutch Inns OF Am., Inc., 244 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…h will produce an inequitable or unconscionable result, equity will not grant affirmative relief. * * * ” Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Investment Company, 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827; Rader v. Prather, 100 Fla. 591, 130 So. 15; Rivers v. Amara, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 364; Humphrey v. Humphrey, 254 Ala. 395, 48 So. 2d 424; Frank v. Dodd, Mo.App.1939, 130 S.W. 2d 210; Wilson v. Watt, S.Ct.Mo. 1959, 327 S.W. 2d 841; 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 1076. A different situation might have been presented if no improv…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence