MYRTLE STEINMETZ, ET AL.,
v.
MARSHALL C. WISEHART
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 lower court's decree, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate her right to maintain an independent suit in equity for title conveyance. The court found no privity to support her claim and that the lower court correctly determined the appellee acquired no title to convey.
No, the appellant failed to demonstrate that she was in a position to maintain an independent suit in equity against the plaintiff to convey the legal title to the property. The court below properly held that the plaintiff acquired no title, thus having nothing to convey.
“The defendant in the court below, appellant here, has not made it appear by this record that she is in a position to maintain an independent suit in equity' against the plaintiff to convey to her the legal title to the property involved.”
Establishes the core reason for the appellant's failure on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to compel the conveyance of legal title to property, but the record did not establish her ability to maintain an independent suit…
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 Suit In Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in the court below, appellant here, has not made it appear by this record that she is in a position to maintain an independent suit in equity' against the plaintiff to convey to her the legal title to the property involved.
*754There is no privity of the parties to the contract under which defendant is entitled to a conveyance of the property to her. She might have had affirmative relief by way of cancellation and expunging from the record as a cloud on her title the deed held by the plaintiff and she may have in a separate and independent suit, grounds for relief to require Beacom-Manor, Inc., her grantor in the sales contract, to specifically perform the contract by making, executing and delivering a conveyance of the legal title.
The court below properly held that Marshall C. Wisehart acquired no title. Therefore, he has nothing that he can be required to convey.
For the reasons stated, the decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Chapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., dissent.
(dissenting) — Myrtle Steinmetz signed a contract and paid the agreed purchase price therefor and was entitled to a deed under her contract with BeacomManor; Inc. When she completed her payments and demanded a deed from Beacom-Manor, she was told that Beacom-Manor had been sold under execution to plaintiff Marshall Wisehart. Courts look beyond the corporate screen and disregard form for the purpose of doing equity. See Wofford v. Wofford, 176 So. 504. This case should not be decided upon the theory that no privity exists between the purchaser Wisehart at the executive sale but on the principle that right and justice should prevail and the action of the plaintiff below was a scheme, sham and device to advance his interest at the cost of an innocent purchaser.
The decree should be reversed.
Chapman, J.
(dissenting) — Myrtle Steinmetz signed a contract and paid the agreed purchase price therefor and was entitled to a deed under her contract with BeacomManor; Inc. When she completed her payments and demanded a deed from Beacom-Manor, she was told that Beacom-Manor had been sold under execution to plaintiff Marshall Wisehart. Courts look beyond the corporate screen and disregard form for the purpose of doing equity. See Wofford v. Wofford, 176 So. 504. This case should not be decided upon the theory that no privity exists between the purchaser Wisehart at the executive sale but on the principle that right and justice should prevail and the action of the plaintiff below was a scheme, sham and device to advance his interest at the cost of an innocent purchaser. The decree should be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton S. Greenwood v. Sol Rotfort, 158 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1946)…ere any privity of contract between the defendant Greenwood and the two parties above named. Their interest in this suit, while very real, is contingent and expectant. This suit can be fully adjudicated without their presence. Steinmetz v. Wisehart, 138 Fla. 753, 190 So. 13. The interest which a party must have in the subject matter of a suit, in order to be a necessary party thereto, is a present, substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future contingent interest. Green v. Grant,…