VIDEON ET UX.
v.
HODGE
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.
In this property dispute, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court's finding that a deed absolute on its face was in fact a mortgage, and that the subsequent purchasers were not innocent for value, thus allowing the original owner to redeem the property. The case illustrates the principle that deeds may be recharacterized as mortgages based on evidence of the parties' true intent, and that fraudulent conveyances to avoid creditors' rights will not shield subsequent purchasers from the claims of the original grantor.
The conveyance was in fact and in law a mortgage, not an absolute deed, and the W. O. Videons were not innocent purchasers for value. Therefore, the original owner retained the right to redeem the property from the W. O. Videons despite the subsequent conveyance.
“Every decree or order appealed to this Court comes here with the presumption of correctness and we have said on many occasions that the appellant has the burden of showing that error was committed.”
Establishes the standard of review on appeal and allocates the burden of proof to the appellant challenging the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-appellee conveyed certain lands to T. B. Videon by what purported to be an absolute warranty deed, but the parties' true intent was that…
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 To Redeem cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
Appellee, plaintiff below, filed a complaint alleging that he made a conveyance of certain lands by instrument on its face a deed but in fact a mortgage to T. B. Videon and wife, who to defeat his rights fraudulently conveyed the property to W. O. Videon and wife, who were aware of the circumstances. The Court found that the alleged conveyance was in fact a mortgage and that appellee had the right to redeem from W. O. Videon and wife, who were not innocent purchasers for value, and entered an appropriate decree.
Two questions are presented by appellant viz.:
Question No. 1.
“On the evidence in the suit, was the conveyance of certain lands by the appellee to the appellant, T. B. Videon, by warranty deed absolute on its face, in fact and in law merely a mortgage to secure the payment of money?”
Question No. 2.
“On the evidence in this suit, was the appellant, W. O. Videon, an innocent purchaser for value of the said lands from the appellant, T. B. Videon?”
We have carefully considered the more than 200 pages of testimony in this case and the various exhibits and find that on almost every material issue the evidence is in hopeless conflict. The learned Chancellor below not only heard every witness personally but actively participated in the examination of many of them. It is apparent to us that every possible avenue was explored by respective counsel and the lower court in search of the truth.
Every decree or order appealed to this Court comes here with the presumption of correctness and we have said on many occasions that the appellant has the burden of showing that error was committed. The appellants here have failed tó carry that burden. See Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842, 192 So. 392. Moreover, the record shows substantial, competent evidence to support the decree appealed from. See Markell v. Hilpert, supra; Elliott v. Connor, 63 Fla. 408, 58 So. 241.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, Acting Chief Justice, HOB-SON, J., and HOLT, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynch v. Coppola, 129 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…erroneous, and a presumption is stronger when the chancellor has himself heard the witnesses testify. Moreover, one who complains of error must make such error clearly appear. Harmon v. Harmon, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 209; and Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 396. We conclude, upon careful review, that no reversible error has been made to appear and, accordingly, the final decree of the chancellor is affirmed. KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.…
-
Groover v. Simonhoff, 157 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…a presumption of correctness. See Meadows Southern Construction Co. v. Pezzaniti, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 499; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 396; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 706. An examination of the record and the briefs filed by the respective parties fails to demonstrate that the chancellor committed any error, and his decree is supportable on either or both of the grounds u…
-
City OF Miami v. BUS Benches Co., 174 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…Construction Co. v. Pezzanti, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 499; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So. 2d 183; Groover v. Simonhoff, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 541. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 396; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 706; Groover v. Simonhoff, supra. A municipality is bound to recognize its contracts, the same as an individual [see: Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 118 Fla. 671, 160 So. 15, 98 A.L.R. 513; 23 Fla.Jur., M…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)
- Elliott v. Rubie C. Conner, 63 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1912)