J. J. HELVESTON, AS RECEIVER OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER N. HELVESTON, ABSENTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
D. J. HOBBS, 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.
A receiver of an absentee's estate appealed a decree granting a lien to Hobbs for labor and materials allegedly performed at the absentee's request. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that Hobbs's claim against the estate failed because any promise by the absentee to pay for work performed on another's land constitutes a promise to pay another's debt, which must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
The court reversed the decree, holding that Hobbs cannot recover because (1) his lien was extinguished by the foreclosure sale to which he was a party, and (2) any promise by Helveston to pay for work done on another's land is a promise to pay another's debt, which must be evidenced in writing under Florida's Statute of Frauds, and no such writing existed.
“In those cases where the proceedings are regular and junior lienholders are duly made parties to the action, the purchaser takes the realty freed from the lien of the junior encumbrancers.”
Establishes that Hobbs's lien was extinguished by the foreclosure sale in which he was properly made a defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalter N. Helveston, an absentee, held a mortgage on property in Punta Gorda. Hobbs performed labor and furnished materials for construction on the pr…
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 Statute Of Frauds cases and more on FLexlaw
— Appellee Hobbs filed his petition of intervention in the Circuit Court of Charlotte County, Florida, in a chancery cause therein pending wherein a receiver had been appointed to take charge of, hold, manage and conduct the estate, property and assets of Walter N. Helveston, absentee. The petition sought to establish a lien in favor of Hobbs for labor and material alleged to have been performed and furnished by Hobbs to Walter N. Helveston, as owner upon lot 2, of Block 120, of the City of Punta Gorda. See In Re Estate of Walter N. Helveston, 96 Fla. 390, 117 So. 334.
*459After taking and submission of testimony, the court below found and decreed that appellee in privity with and at the request of Walter N. Helveston, absentee, and owner, performed labor and furnished materials in construction of a dwelling house upon the lands described in the petition in a certain amount; that same was still due and unpaid; and directed the receiver to pay the same and in default thereof that the property be sold.
From this decree, appellant J. J. Helveston, as receiver etc., appealed.
It is contended by appellant that the testimony in this cause wholly fails to support the decree.
The testimony herein shows that at the time of furnishing of the labor and material by Hobbs, Walter N. Helveston held a mortgage upon the lands in the petition described and that after the furnishing of such labor and. material and the appointment of J. J. Helveston, as receiver, the said receiver foreclosed the mortgage theretofore held by Walter N. Helveston; that appellee was duly and regularly made a defendant to the foreclosure proceeding; that the said mortgage was alleged in the bill to be prior in dignity to the claims of defendant Hobbs and was decreed by the final decree in said cause to be prior and superior to all claims of defendant Hobbs and ordered paid and upon default in payment was sold by a special master under the direction of the court and bought in at such sale by J. J. Helveston as receiver, which sale appears to have been confirmed and no appeal taken.
In those cases where the proceedings are regular and junior lienholders are duly made parties to the action, the purchaser takes the realty freed from the lien of the junior encumbrancers. 2 Wiltsie on Mortgages (4th Ed.) Sec. 776.
It is insisted by appellee that though his alleged lien be lost by foreclosure, Walter N. Helveston, absentee, promised and agreed to pay for the labor and materials by *460him performed and furnished upon the building erected upon the land in the petition described and that inasmuch as this claim is pending in a receivership matter before a court of chancery petitioner should therein have’ judgment against the estate of Walter N. Helveston, absentee, for the amount of his claim.
It appears from the evidence that the labor performed and materials furnished by Hobbs was furnished to and performed for Coles, the owner of the lands upon which the building was erected and the agreement by Walter N. Helveston to pay the debt was an agreement to pay the debt of another which must be in writing.
The testimony discloses no written agreement on the part of Walter N. Helveston to pay.
By section 5779 (3872) Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, it is provided that no action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt of another person unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought' shall be in writing.
The final decree appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
— The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the decree of the court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allison ON THE Ocean, Inc. v. Paul's Carpet, Inc., 479 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…he subject property. Inasmuch as Paul’s Carpet was a party to the mechanic’s lien foreclosure and its judgment lien was inferior to its mechanic’s lien, its interest in the property was concluded by virtue of the foreclosure. See Helveston v. Hobbs, 102 Fla. 458, 135 So. 881 (1931). Furthermore, the stipulated final judgment of foreclosure didn’t state that the judgment lien would survive the foreclosure, or that a purchaser at foreclosure would take subject to the judgment lien. In fact, it stated the con…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Est. of Walter N. Helveston, 96 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1928)