J. M. WILLSON, JR. AND MINNIE MOORE WILLSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENJAMIN C. BUXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF J. E. BUXTON, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS JOHN E. BUXTON, DECEASED; JOHN EMORY WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF J. E. BUXTON, DECEASED, AND LEONA MAE WELLS, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1928-08-01
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur., Brown, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment., Ellis, C. J., and Strum., J., dissent.
96 Fla. 371 Florida Supreme Court (1928) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this Florida Supreme Court case, J.M. Willson challenged two deeds he executed to J.E. Buxton (and later to Buxton's estate) as security for loans, arguing they should be treated as mortgages rather than absolute conveyances. The court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the deeds were intended to secure debt repayment and should be reformed as mortgages under Florida law.


Holding

The court held that the deeds were intended to secure payment of money rather than to effect an absolute conveyance, and therefore should be treated as mortgages under Florida law. The court reversed the lower court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this determination.


Key Quotes

“all deeds of conveyance of other instruments of writing given to secure the payment of money shall be deemed and treated as mortgages”

Statement of Florida statutory law (Sec. 3836) requiring deeds securing debt to be treated as mortgages regardless of form.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 1916, J.E. Buxton of Vermont loaned money to J.M. Willson of Florida, securing the loan with mortgages on Willson's lands near Kissimmee. The loan …

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In 1916, J. E. Bnxton of Middletown Springs, Vermont, procured a loan for J. M. Willson of Kissimmee, Florida. Willson secured said loan with a mortgage on certain lands owned by him in or near Kissimmee, Florida. The loan was increased from time to time and was secured by mortgages on the same or additional lands. In 1921 said loans aggregated $26,000.00 when Will-son executed to Buxton his deed to the lands described in the mortgage previously referred to. About one year after the last named deed Willson executed to Buxton his quitclaim deed covering the lands described in the previous deed. In February 1923, J. E. Buxton died and his son, B. C. Buxton, appellee here, was named as executor of his will.

This suit was brought in the circuit court of Osceola County, Florida, March, 1925, for the purpose of having the two deeds as above referred to decreed to be mortgages, to require an accounting between complainant and defendant, to grant complainant a reasonable time to pay defendant whatever may be found to be due him and to decree the title to the lands covered by the said deeds or mortgages free from the lien thereof. On final hearing the chancellor found the equities to be with the defendant and dismissed the bill of complaint. Appeal was taken from that final decree.

There is little or no variance between appellant and appellee as to the ultimate facts in this case. The sole question presented for our consideration being whether or not the facts as disclosed show that the two deeds brought in question were intended as full settlement of all claims and demands existing between appellant and appellee or were they executed for the purpose of better securing the said claims and demands. Any doubt as to the purpose of the said deeds should be resolved in favor of the latter theory.

Sec. 3836, Rev. Gen. Stats, of Florida, in effect provides that all deeds of conveyance of other instruments of writing given to secure the payment of money shall be deemed and treated as mortgages. There is nothing on the face of the deeds to show that they were intended to secure the payment of money. On a careful consideration of the record we are not entirely satisfied, however, that the deeds here questioned were not given for that purpose. The original notes and mortgages were never returned to Mr. Willson. It is shown that the elder Buxton never expected anything for the deeds except his principal and interest back which was also true as to the younger Buxton prior to the bringing of this suit. There is evidence which tends strongly to indicate that such was the understanding by both appellant and appellee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decree of the chancellor should be reversed.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum., J., dissent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Willson v. Buxton, 110 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1933)
    …Buford, J. This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. See Willson v. Buxton, 96 Fla. 371, 118 So. 475. In that case this Court held that certain conveyances made by Willson to Buxton were in law mortgages and were not absolute conveyances as was therein contended by Buxton. In this opinion we shall refer to the complainants in the cour…
  • Raulerson v. Green, 124 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1936)
    …hether the several documents indicated that the transaction as an entirety constituted a mortgage on the land of Green under the statute. Sec. 5724 (3836) C. G. L. See Stovall v. [*187] Stokes, 94 Fla. 717, 115 So. 828; Smith v. State Life Ins. Co., 96 Fla. 371, 153 So. 842; Connor v. Connor, 59 Fla. 467, 52 So. 727. This being so, the equitable plea allowed by statute, Sec. 4301 (2635) C. G. L., was proven and operates as a defense in ejectment. See Walls v. Endel, 20 Fla. 86; Smith v. Love, 49 Fla. 230,…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw