SMITH
v.
BISCAYNE PARK ESTATES
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.
The court held that the transactions were mortgages, not deeds of sale, and affirmed the lower court's decree.
[1] Whether a deed absolute in form constitutes a mortgage or a sale depends upon the parties' intention at the time of execution, and findings of fact by the trial court wil…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“whether a deed absolute in form is to be taken as a mortgage depends on the parties' intention at the time of the execution”
Establishing the controlling legal standard for distinguishing mortgages from deeds of sale
The lower court, affirming a Special Master's findings, decreed that certain deeds absolute in form were intended as mortgages. The appellate court re…
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 Harmless Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from the final decree of the lower court holding that certain transactions involved in this litigation were mortgages rather than deeds of sale.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that whether a deed absolute in form is to be taken as a mortgage depends on the parties' intention at the time of the execution. McKinney v. Gainey, 96 Fla. 547, 118 So. 917; Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842, 192 So. 392; Marcus v. Hull, 142 Fla. 306, 195 So. 170. We are likewise committed to the rule that the findings of fact by a jury or by the court below will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support them. Marcus v. Hull, supra, and cases therein cited; Smith v. Midcoast Inv. Co., 127 Fla. 455,173 So. 348; Nelson v. State, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So. 2d 136.
In the proceedings had below, the cause was referred to a Special Master, who held 23 hearings during which 604 pages of testimony were taken and transcribed. The Master's findings of fact were affirmed by the trial court, and the deeds in question were decreed to be mortgages. Upon a careful consideration of the complete record in this cause, we find that there was ample evidence to support the findings of fact of the Master and the final decree of the lower court.
The appellant has also complained here of the ruling of the Special Master admitting in evidence testimony of other similar transactions between the appellant and other persons not parties to the transactions here in question, which ruling was affirmed by the lower court in its final decree. The lower court found that there was no error in such ruling, but that, even if there was error, it was harmless, as the remaining evidence amply supported the finding that the transactions in question were mortgages and not deeds. We find no error in this respect.
There being no error, the decree is affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur. *Page 443
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAY v. United States Leasing Corp., 239 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ld have ignored the parol evidence rule and looked to the intent of the parties to see if the purpose of the entire transaction was to secure the payment of money. Jones v. White, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 1; Smith v. Biscayne Park Estates, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 442; Thomas v. Thomas, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 771. For the reasons set forth above, the summary final judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Brevard Cnty. v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…erits of this device for enabling a jury to apply an expert’s scientific knowledge to the facts of a case see, McCormick, Law of Evidence, Section 16 (1954). .Section 59.041, Florida Statutes, 1969, F.S.A.; Smith v. Biscayne Park Estates, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 442; Williamson Candy Co. v. Lewis, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 522; Greenfield v. Bland, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 727.…
-
Williams v. Seaboard Airline R.R. Co., 268 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…Yarn, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 638. . Marcus v. Hull, 1939, 142 Fla. 306, 195 So. 170 and cases cited therein; Nelson v. State ex rel. Quigg, 1945, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So. 2d 136, and cases cited therein; and Smith v. Biscayne Park Estates, Fla. 1949, 42 So. 2d 442. .Martin v. Tindell, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 473; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Varn, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 638; and Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So. 2d 332.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 156 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1945)
- Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)
- Marcus v. Hull, 142 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1939)
- S. v. Smith v. Midcoast Inv. Co., 127 Fla. 455 (Fla. 1937)
- McKinney v. Gainey, 96 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1928)
- Walker v. Humphrey, 96 Fla. 666 (Fla. 1928)