BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND MIAMI PREFABRICATORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PINKERTON-HAYS LUMBER COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Bankers Life and Casualty Company appealed a foreclosure decree on a chattel mortgage, arguing it held title to the equipment via a prior bill of sale and that the property constituted fixtures rather than chattels. The court affirmed the foreclosure, finding the equipment was personal property (chattels) not fixtures, and that Bankers Life lacked title since the bill of sale predated the equipment's fabrication.
The court held that the equipment was personal property (chattels) rather than fixtures, and that Bankers Life failed to establish title through the bill of sale because the bill of sale was executed two years before the equipment was fabricated and therefore could not convey equipment that did not yet exist.
“The principal defense raised by the defendants was that the chattels described in plaintiff's mortgage had been attached to real property as fixtures prior to the date of the execution and delivery of plaintiff's mortgage. The testimony and evidence, however, showed that the parties, at the time of the execution and delivery of said mortgage, considered, treated and at all times material hereto dealt with said chattels as pieces of equipment and not as fixtures.”
Establishes the court's finding that the parties' conduct and characterization of the property as equipment rather than fixtures was dispositive of the fixture issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBankers Life and Casualty Company executed a chattel mortgage on equipment at a lumber yard. The company claimed it obtained title to the equipment th…
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 Chattel Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Bankers Life and Casualty Company, seeks review of a final decree of foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. Appellant contended, first, that if the equipment described in the mortgage was a chattel it had title to it by virtue of a bill of sale received prior to the execution of the mortgage [with the exception of one chattel] and, second, that the' equipment described was in fact not a chattel but was an integral part of the real estate owned by Bankers Life and Casualty Company and, therefore, a “fixture”. After hearing testimony and receiving evidence, the chancellor rendered his final decree in effect finding that the' property described was in fact a chattel and not a fixture and that title was not in Bankers Life and Casualty Company. :
*552The evidence amply supports no title in the appellant Bankers Life and Casualty by virtue of the bill of sale, which was executed some two years prior to the fabrication of the equipment described in the mortgage, and the chancellor specifically found that the property described was not a fixture, as follows:
* * * * * *
“3. That defendants have failed to sustain the required proof to defeat this foreclosure action. The principal defense raised by the defendants was that the chattels described in plaintiff’s mortgage had been attached to real property as fixtures prior to the date of the execution and delivery of plaintiff’s mortgage. The testimony and evidence, however, showed that the parties, at the time of the execution and delivery of said mortgage, considered, treated and at all times material hereto dealt with said chattels as pieces of equipment and not as fixtures. The Court is cognizant of the fact that much of this equipment is large, of great weight and was required to be bolted and secured to a floor to facilitate its use. However, the testimony, expert and otherwise, was overwhelming in indicating and proving that the removal of this machinery would in no wise whatsoever damage the premises to which they were bolted. All of the testimony, without rebuttal, indicated the premises to be an open lumber yard which readily lent itself to the installation and removal of heavy equipment, without damage to the premises.”
ij? ‡ ^ <4*
The final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 782; Williams v. Guyton, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 7; Goldstein v. Pettinger, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 740. If there is substantial, competent evidence to support the chancellor’s finding, it should be affirmed. See: Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 499; Seiff v. Presto Brick Machine Corp., Fla. App.1964, 168 So.2d 700; Goldstein v. Pettinger, supra. A review of the record demonstrates that there is substantial, competent evidence, plus the reasonable inferences therefrom, to support the chancellor’s findings: 1. That the equipment described was not in existence at the time of the execution of the bill of sale and, 2. That the property was in fact a chattel and not a fixture. See: Commercial Finance Co. v. Brooksville Hotel Co., 98 Fla. 410, 123 So. 814, 64 A.L.R. 1219; Greenwald v. Graham, 100 Fla. 818, 130 So. 608; Meena v. Drousiotis, 146 Fla. 168, 200 So. 362; Illinois Grain Corporation v. Schleman, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 307; 14 Fla.Jur., Fixtures, §§ 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final decree here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gosta Tollius v. Dutch Inns OF Am., Inc., 244 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
-
Atkins v. Keller, 400 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…nding that as a matter of fact there was a meeting of the minds between the Seller and the Purchaser, we have no alternative but to affirm the award of the commission to the Broker. Bankers Life and Casualty Company v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Company, 186 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., supra; Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976). The appellant relies principally upon McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 98 So. 2d 781 (Fla.1957) in support of his appeal, contending that the trial j…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Lucas, 228 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…to support the trial court’s finding of liability, it should be affirmed. Brandt v. Dodd, 150 Fla. 635, 8 So. 2d 471; Coleman v. Phipps, Fla. 1955, 82 So. 2d 682; Bankers Life & Casualty Company v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Company, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 551; Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Gulf American Land Corporation, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So. 2d 17. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Fin. Co. v. Brooksville Hotel Co., 98 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1929)
- Greenwald v. Graham, 100 Fla. 818 (Fla. 1930)
- Seiff v. Presto Brick Mach. Corp., 168 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Meena v. Drousiotis, 146 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1941)
- Ill. Grain Corp. v. Schleman, 114 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Sunset Realty Corp. v. Dawson McDANIEL, 165 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bertman v. Solomon, 166 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Goldstein v. Pettinger, 183 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Dixie Williams v. Guyton, 167 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- The Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Hare, 183 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)