MORAN-ALLEEN COMPANY, A. H. BROWN, AND HIS WIFE, MABEL BROWN, APPELLANTS,
v.
C. H. BROWN, J. G. BLACK AND G. L. DORMAN, APPELLEES
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.
A Florida Supreme Court case addressing whether a judicial sale of real estate may be vacated on grounds of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, fraud, and irregularity. The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that appellants were estopped by their own conduct from challenging the sale after consenting to its terms, participating in the sale, accepting proceeds, and waiting over a year before seeking relief.
While the Court acknowledged that judicial sales may be vacated on a proper showing of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, mistake, fraud, or irregularity, appellants failed to bring themselves within these grounds. The Court held that appellants were estopped by their own conduct from asserting any right or interest in the premises due to their participation in, consent to, and acceptance of the sale, followed by a delay of over a year in seeking relief.
“a judicial sale, may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds”
Establishes the applicable legal standard that judicial sales may be challenged for inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, mistake, fraud, or irregularity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants (Moran-Alleen Company, A. H. Brown, and Mabel Brown) sought to vacate a judicial sale of real estate in Suwannee County. The record shows t…
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 Surprise cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, C. J.
Appellants instituted this suit in the Circuit Court of Suwannee County to vacate and set aside a judicial sale of real estate on the ground of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise and fraud imposed on complainants, irregularity in the conduct of the sale and the admission of irrelevant and incompetent testimony. The chancellor declined to set the sale aside and dismissed the bill. Appeal is taken from that order. As to the last named ground it is sufficient to say that the chancellor heard the testimony and his finding, is amply supported by the competent testimony in the record. On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident or mistake imposed on complainant and irregularity in the conduct of the sale this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale, may on a proper showing made, be vacated and set aside on any or all of these grounds. Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142, 72 So. R. 638; Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570, 39 So. R. 995; Florida Fertilizer Mfg. Co. v. Hodge, 64 Fla. 275, 69 So. R. 127.
In the case at bar appellants have not brought themselves within any of these grounds. The record discloses that they (appellants) advised and consented to the manner and conditions' of the sale, were present at the sale with counsel, requested that the sale be confirmed, accepted the proceeds of the sale, repurchased the property so sold from the purchaser at the sale, executed their note with mortgage back to such purchaser, entered their appearance to a suit to foreclose the last mentioned mortgage, suffered a final decree to be entered in said last named foreclosure suit and after the expiration of a year or more from the time of the sale complained of, come into court and seek to set it aside.
We think that under such showing appellants are -by their own conduct estopped to assert any right or interest in the premises and that the decree below must be and is hereby affirmed. Camp v. Mosely, 2 Fla. 171; Southern Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; Hollingsworth v. Hancock, 7 Fla. 338; Coram v. Palmer, 63 Fla. 116, 58 So. R. 721; Blackiston v. Smith, 73 Fla. 25, 73 So. R. 839.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Collura, 163 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…ty. Restatement of Contracts, § 302. Forfeitures are not favored either in law or equity, and the courts should avoid them if possible. Accord: Baker v. Clifford-Mathew Inv. Co., 1930, 99 Fla. 1229, 128 So. 827; Hemphill v. Pesat, 1929, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561. Considering the circumstances in the Ranson case, the proposition was correctly stated there, that where the policy contains a clause requiring that notice of an accident be given “as soon as practicable”, the clause is breached by a failure to not…
-
Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 138 So. 21; So. 758 (Fla. 1931)…d by defendant. Forfeiture clauses are not favored and courts of equity always mitigate or relieve against them, when it can be done without violence to the contract of the parties. Rader v. Prader (Fla.), 130 So. 15; Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561. After careful examination of the contract as a whole and by sections, and in view of the former affirmance by this Court of the order overruling demurrers of defendant to the same bill of complaint, which demurrers raised substantially the same qu…
-
Ohio Realty Inv. Corp. v. S. Bank OF W. Palm Beach, 300 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1974)…lowing the property to be resubmitted for bid in a proper manner. Levy v. Gourmet Masters, Inc., 214 So. 2d 82 (Fla.App.3d 1968). As was so eloquently stated by our late, revered Chief Justice Glenn Terrell in Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 123 So. 561 (1929): “On the question of gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake imposed on complainant, and irregularity in the conduct of the sale, this court is committed to the doctrine that a judicial sale may on a proper showing…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1916)
- Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570 (Fla. 1905)
- Coram v. Palmer, 63 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1912)
- The S. Life Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Augustus H. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1853)
- Camp v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1848)
- Hollingsworth v. Wm. Handcock and Rigdon Brown, 7 Fla. 338 (Fla. 1857)
- Smith v. Fla. Power Co., 64 Fla. 275 (Fla. 1912)
- Fla. Fertilizer Mfg. Co. & William A. Knight v. Cam Hodge, 64 Fla. 275 (Fla. 1912)
- Blackiston v. Melitha Smith and her husband Stephen Smith, 73 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1917)