ELIAS M. LOEW, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIUS I. FRIEDMAN AND ELEANOR S. FRIEDMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Loew sued to foreclose a $25,000 note and mortgage executed by the Friedmans. The Friedmans counterclaimed alleging the note and mortgage were procured under duress and threats of disbarment and criminal prosecution. The trial court, following a Special Master's findings, cancelled the mortgage and note, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
The mortgage was procured under duress and is therefore void and cancelled as to both defendants. The note is cancelled as to Eleanor Friedman. The trial court's findings of fact, supported by the Special Master's detailed findings, are affirmed as no manifest error appears.
“This Court has repeatedly held that a finding of fact in an equity case will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for equitable findings of fact
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLoew and Julius Friedman invested money together in a corporation that failed financially. Loew threatened Friedman with disbarment and criminal prose…
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 Manifest Error Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
FLOYD, Associate Justice.
Plaintiff-appellant sued to foreclose a certain note and mortgage executed by defendants-áppellees, Julius Friedman and Eleanor Friedman, his wife, in the principal amount of $25,000. Defendants filed separate Answers and Counterclaims, alleging that the note and mortgage were executed under threats, duress and undue influence and prayed for cancellation of the note and mortgage. The cause was referred to a Special Master who took testimony. Julius Friedman is a lawyer, and he and the plaintiff invested money in a corporation which failed financially.. He averred that the plaintiff threatened him with disbarment and criminal prosecution if he did not pay plaintiff back the money which plaintiff had invested in the corporation. Eleanor Friedman testified that plaintiff had told her about his intended action if the investment was not returned, and she stated that she signed the note and mortgage to preclude plaintiff from pursuing the matter further against her husband. The Special Master made detailed findings and recommended that the mortgage be cancelled as to both defendants and that the note be cancelled as to Eleanor Friedman. Exceptions, were filed by both plaintiff and defendants to the Special Master’s Report; these exceptions were overruled, and the Court entered its Order in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Master. This Court has repeatedly held that a finding of fact in an equity case will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of manifest error. There are conflicts in the testimony taken before the Special Master, which conflicts were resolved in his findings of fact. He concluded that the mortgage was procured under duress and that the mortgage was therefore void. The mortgage encumbered the home owned by the defendants as an estate by the entireties.. It is apparent from the testimony that the plaintiff was not looking to the corporation for the return of his investment, but was looking to Friedman personally. There are several references made in the testimony to a purported “Settlement Agreement” between Julius Friedman and the plaintiff, but for some reason not apparent in the record, this “Settlement Agreement” was never offered nor admitted in evidence. On the question of duress, the plaintiff denied the same for his side of the cause, and the defendants offered the testimony of themselves in addition to several other witnesses. While the evidence may well be the subject of two or more constructions and the testimony may be interpreted differently by two reasonable examiners thereof, it is not made to appear that manifest error was committed by the interpretation and construction placed thereon by the Special Master and confirmed by the Court.
No manifest error being made to appear on the questions of fact, the order of the lower court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and SE-BRING, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carolina Lumber Co. v. Daniel, 97 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)…., Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So. 2d 163; Meola v. Sparks, 138 Fla. 364, 189 So. 408. . E. g., Povia v. Melvin, Fla., 66 So. 2d 494; Exchange Nat. Bank of Winter Haven v. Smith, 148 Fla. 473, 4 So. 2d 675. . Loew v. Friedman, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 672.…
-
Mann v. Thompson, 100 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…142 Fla. 834, 196 So. 864. . Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 594; Alexander v. Bess, 123 Fla. 713, 167 So. 533. . See: Wood v. Hammel, 132 Fla. 164, 181 So. 145. . Mese v. Dade Tire Co., Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 587; Loew v. Friedman, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 672; Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 227. . Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 253, 54 So. 92. . Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498. . Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Florida Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 390, 52 So.…
-
Al Goldstein v. Stone, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…Fla. 287, 89 So. 869; Grantham v. Grantham, 140 Fla. 120, 191 So. 197; Peterson v. Plancock, 146 Fla. 410, 1 So. 2d 255; Monyak v. Monyak, Fla., 43 So. 2d 903; Town of Howey in the Hills v. Graessle, Fla., 57 So. 2d 422, and Loew v. Friedman, Fla., 80 So. 2d 672. We find no reversible error in the record and therefore conclude that the cause should be, and it is hereby, affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence