WRIGHT ESTATES, INC., A CORPORATION FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF JAMES BRYAN,
v.
MARTHA GERMAIN
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.
Possession under an executory contract is not adverse to the vendor, and a mortgagor cannot claim adverse possession against a mortgagee before the foreclosure is complete.
Appellee, a mortgagor in possession, claimed title by adverse possession based on an oral agreement with the mortgagee to buy the property at foreclos…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee procured a final judgment in ejectment. The basis of her claim arises out of these facts.
In 1934 Wright Estates, Inc., held a mortgage on eighty acres of land. Appellee was the mortgagor and in possession. Appellee claims that Wright Estates, Inc., orally agreed that if she would forbear to defend a suit to foreclose the mortgage, Wright Estates would buy in the property at master’s sale and deed to her the land now in suit. Thereupon appellee enclosed the land and claims that she has now acquired a title to same by adverse possession of more than seven years. The foreclosure proceeded and was concluded on April 6, 1935, by Wright Estates, Inc., purchasing the property at master’s sale.
Before the fiiing of this action seven years possession ran from the date of the alleged oral agreement and the erection of the enclosure but there was less than seven years after the conclusion of the foreclosure. The question therefore is whether appellee could have held adversely to Wright Estates before the completion of the foreclosuré ?
The law is well settled that possession under an executory contract is not adverse as to vendor and his privies. See C. J. Secundum page 677. Tilman v. Niemira, 99 Fla. 883, 127 So. 855. Possession cannot be adverse to one who has no right to possession. Coe v. Finlayson, 41 Fla. 169, 26 So. 704. In this case Wright Estates, Inc., had no right to possess the land as mortgagee. How, then, can it be charged with failure to assert a right of possession where the law does not recognize such a right in a mortgagee? It never had a right of possession until its title was confirmed at the conclusion of the foreclosure. It naturally follows then, since the seven year statute did not run after Wright Estates became entitled to possession, appellee’s claim must fail.
The judgment is reversed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and.CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klein v. Melania Flores Meza & Kendall Acres Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 4 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…1991 through February 2000 pursuant to a written contract for deed. As both section 95.18 and the Florida Supreme Court make clear, “possession under an executo-ry contract is not adverse as to the vendor and his privies.” Wright Estates v. Germain, 152 Fla. 612, 12 So. 2d 451, 452 (1943) (citations omitted). Adverse possession during this period of time could not, therefore, exist. Meza’s continued occupancy following her conceded failure in February 2000 to make the balloon payment called for in the cont…
-
Evie T. Parker v. NIX, 580 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…that Nix’s occupancy was open, notorious, and hostile to Parker; and that Parker had adequate notice of the nature of Nix’s claim. Parker relies on Coe v. Finlayson, 41 Fla. 169, 26 So. 704 (1899), and Wright Estates, Inc. v. Germain, 152 Fla. 612, 12 So. 2d 451 (1943), for the assertion that one cannot adversely possess property against another who is not entitled to possession. Nix seeks to distinguish those cases, arguing that Coe dealt with a mortgagee’s attempt to adversely possess property against the…
Authorities Cited
- J. M. Coe de bonis non of the Estate of W. E. Coe v. Finlayson, 41 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1899)