G. R. NEELD, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LIZZIE E. SPERRY, 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 affirmed a lower court's denial of a mortgage foreclosure defense that sought rescission and cancellation due to alleged misrepresentation, mistake, or fraud. The court found no evidence of such claims in a typical 'boom time' transaction.
No, the record did not disclose sufficient misrepresentation, mistake, or fraud by the complainant vendor to warrant cancellation of the mortgage and return of purchase money.
“The sole question pressed for our determination is whether or not the record discloses such misrepresentation, mistake or fraud on the part of complainant vendor as would warrant a court of equity in decreeing a cancellation of the mortgage and return to the vendee of the amount paid on the purchase price.”
This quote frames the central legal question before the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to rescind and cancel a mortgage, alleging misrepresentation, mistake, or fraud by the complainant vendor. The transaction occurred …
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 Cancellation Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The defense to the bill to foreclose was presented by answer in which it was among other things prayed that rescission and cancellation of the mortgage be granted and that the purchase money paid on the subject matter thereof be returned to the mortgagor.
The sole question pressed for our determination is whether or not the record discloses such misrepresentation, mistake or fraud on the part of complainant vendor as would warrant a court of equity in decreeing a cancellation of the mortgage and return to the vendee of the amount paid on the purchase price.
We have examined the record and it exemplifies a typical “boom time” transaction in which all parties were sui juris had knowledge of the res, ignored specifications, cast bills of particulars to the discard, and had not time or place to heed the bona tides of the trade. The boom vanished like a mist as did the presumed value of the mortgagor’s equity, but in his dilemma, he seeks the aid of this court to relieve him in his distress. ' For all the record shows, Appellants knew as much about the premises involved as Appellee did and there is no showing that the sale was induced by fraud or misrepresentation or that any representation whatever was asked for or volunteered by Appellee.
The Chancellor denied the relief prayed for and his decree is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur.
Buford, 0. J., and Ellis, and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.