E. S. CORLETT AND MINNIE W. CORLETT, HIS WIFE, AND KRAMES-CORLETT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANKLIN H. WOOD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a mortgage foreclosure decree but reduced the solicitors' fees award as excessive. The case establishes that a mortgage containing an acceleration clause upon default does not require notice to the mortgagor before enforcement, contrary to the mortgagors' argument.
Mortgagees need not provide notice before enforcing mortgages containing express acceleration clauses triggered by the stated defaults. The solicitors' fees awarded were excessive and must be reconsidered by the trial court. The foreclosure decree is otherwise affirmed.
“If any of said sums of money herein referred to be not promptly and fully paid within thirty days next after the same severally become due and payable, or if each and every the stipulations, agreements, conditions and covenants of said promissory notes and this deed, or either, are not duly performed, complied with and abided by, the said aggregate sum mentioned in said promissory notes shall become clue and payable forthwith or thereafter at the option of the Mortgagee”
The acceleration clause in the mortgage that allowed the mortgagee to declare the entire debt due upon default
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorlett and his wife executed a mortgage to Wood securing three promissory notes totaling $15,000 (dated December 14, 1917). The mortgage contained an…
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 Mortgage Acceleration Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A mortgage to secure the payment of notes for $1,000.00, $7,000.00 and $7,000.00, notv sought to he enforced, contains the following:
“If any of said sums of money herein referred to be not promptly and fully paid within thirty days next after the same severally become due and payable, or if each and every the stipulations, agreements, conditions and covenants of said promissory notes and this deed, or either, are not duly performed, complied with and abided by, the said aggregate sum mentioned in said promissory notes shall become clue and payable forthwith or thereafter at the option of the Mortgagee, heirs, legal representatives or assigns, as fully and completely as if the said aggregate sum of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars was originally stipulated to be paid on such day, anything in said promissory notes or herein to the contrary notwithstanding.”
It is alleged “that the said promissory noté for the sum of $1,000.00, payable on or before one year after December 14, 1917, long since fell due and became payable, likewise, the said note for $7,000, payable on or before two years after December 14, 1917, long since fell due and became payable, and though the said defendants have been requested to pay the same, yet they have neglected, failed and refused so to do, and have permitted the said note due and payable one year after December 14, 1917, to remain overdue and unpaid for more than twelve months, and have permitted the said note payable on or before two years after December 14, 1917, to remain overdue and unpaid for more than thirty days next preceding the filing of this bill of complaint.”
A demurrer to the bill of complaint was overruled, and on decree pro -oonfesso and complainant’s testimony, final decree for complainant was rendered for $17,979.69, as principal and interest and $120:06 costs and for $2,500.00 as. solicitors’ fees.
On appeal it is argued that the mortgagors should have been given notice before suit was brought, citing Fossell v. Carter, 65 Fla. 512, 62 South. Rep. 926. It is also contended that the solicitors’ fees awarded are excessive.
The mortgage expressly provides for' the enforcement of the entire mortgage lien upon the defaults stated therein; and the stipulated rights of the mortgagee are not dependent upon notice given to the mortgagor. The Fossell casé related to the sale of land and is not apposite here. This holding is not in conflict with Graham v. Pitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 South. Rep. 512.
Although the evidence taken is not brought here, the allowance for solicitors’ fees, considered in connection with the amount involved and the professional work indicated by the transcript, appears to be excessive; and for this reason the portion of the decree awarding solicitors’ fees is reversed for further consideration by the chancellor: In other respects the decree is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004 (Fla. 1929)…of the option of the mortgagee to declare the.whole of the principal sum and interest secured by the mortgage due and payable. Prince v. Mahin, 73 Fla. 525, 74 So. R. 696; Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. R. 512; 41 C. J. 849; Corlett v. Wood, 81 Fla. 510, 88 So. R. 268. The allegations of the alleged answer being insufficient [*1014] to show a tender of the amount due prior to the exercise of the option by the mortgagee, it remains for us to determine whether the answer shows a waiver of the option…
-
Bryan v. Bullock, 84 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1922)…porations Sects. 4176-4188; Smathers v. Western Carolina Bank, 155 N. C. 283, 71 S. E. Rep. 345. In the event of a recovery of judgment against her it will be satisfied out of her, separate estate. McGill et al. v. Cockrell Jr. et al., 81 Fla. 463, 88 South. Rep. 268. The first proposition, that the act under which the receiver of the insolvent bank was appointed is unconstitutional and his appoinment was therefore invalid and the as [*186] sessment without authority of law, is, we think, also unsound. It is c…
-
Gus' Bath, Inc. v. Lightbown, 133 So. 85 (Fla. 1931)…on of the mortgagee to declare the whole of the principal sum and interest secured by the mortgage due and payable. Prince v. Mahin, 73 Fla. 525, 74 So. 696; Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512, 13 Ann. Cas. 149; 41 C. J. 851; Corlett v. Wood, 81 Fla. 510, 88 So. 268." *Page 1214 It appears that the only evidence of any exercise of the option which came to the knowledge of defendant was the filing of the suit on February 21, 1928. In the above case the opinion states that the complainant never at e…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forssell v. Carter, 65 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1913)
- Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. Krickl, 117 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1934)
- Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046 (Fla. 1907)