G. W. VARN, W. L. VARN AND H. B. HARRELL, COPARTNERS UNDER THE NAME OF VALDOSTA MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. F. ASHBROOK, 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 held that a conditional sales contract for an automobile, which reserved title to the seller until payment of the purchase price, could be treated as a mortgage in equity, allowing the assignee to foreclose on the vehicle and apply proceeds toward the unpaid debt rather than returning them to the buyer.
A contract of sale that retains title to secure payment of purchase money notes may be regarded and treated as a mortgage in equity at the election of the seller or assignee, and such election is binding and operates to vest title in the purchaser subject to a lien for the purchase money enforceable in equity.
“the contract retaining the title to secure the payment of the purchase money notes referred to in the contract of sale may in equity on the showing made, be regarded and treated as a mortgage at the election of the seller or his assignee”
Establishes the core holding that conditional sales contracts are treatable as mortgages in equity at the parties' election
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile was sold under a conditional sales contract that reserved title in the seller until the buyer paid the balance via promissory notes. The…
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 Foreclosure Of Security Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An automobile was delivered to tbe purchaser thereof upon part payment and the execution of a contract reserving title to the automobile in the seller until the balance of the purchase price be paid, the amount being evidenced by promissory notes referred to in the contract of sale. The contract of sale and the notes were assigned to another and the contract of sale was referred to in the transfer as a mortgage. The notes were not paid and the assignee brought foreclosure proceedings on the contract of sale.
Pursuant to the statute on attachment proceedings the court ordered a sale of the automobile and the proceeds were placed in the register of the court. Testimony was taken on the merits of the foreclosure. On final hearing the court dismissed the bill and ordered the money delivered to the complainants, doubtless upon the theory that the contract of sale could not be a mortgage. An appeal was taken by the complainants and the appellee assigned cross-errors as allowed by the rules of the court, asserting error in awarding the proceeds of the sale to .complainants.
As the contract retaining the title to secure the payment of the purchase money notes referred to in the contract of sale may in equity on the showing made, be regarded and treated as a mortgage at the election of the seller or his assignee, and such election having been made, it-is binding and operates to vest the title in the purchaser -subject to a lien for the purchase money which may be enforced in equity. See Aycock Bros. Lumber Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Dothan, 54 Fla. 604, 45 South. Rep. 501; American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 47 South. Rep. 942; Jones on Mortgages (7th ed.) Sections 196, 1449, 257, 279.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings, the money in the registry of the court -to be duly applied on the indebtedness.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis, and West, J .J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)…is only remedies were purely legal remedies, and that his allegation of a lien was palpably nothing but a bald and unsupported conclusion of the pleader. I am aware that these views are in apparent conflict with the case of Varn et al. v. Ashbrook, 84 Fla. 626, 94 So. 384, but a careful reading of that case shows that the decision was based upon the premise that the so-called conditional sale was on the facts shown, in reality a mortgage, and such being the case, the seller could so treat it, and proceed…1 / 4
-
Voges v. Ward, 98 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1929)…purchaser some advantage and protection by recognizing and protecting his equity in the property arising from the payments he. has made, on the purchase price), does not abrogate the doctrine laid down in the cases cited. See Varn v. Ashbrook [*318] 84 Fla. 626, 94 So. R. 384; Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. R. 677. And in Alabama it is held that where, under a conditional sales contract, the purchaser, after having made substantial payments, defaults, he may go into equity and secure relief against…
-
G.F.C. Corp. v. Spradlin, 38 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1949)
Authorities Cited
- Am. Process Co. v. Fla. White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1908)
- Aycock Bros. Lumber Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Dothan, 54 Fla. 604 (Fla. 1907)