Bauman v. Peacock

• Decision Date: 18 May 1955
• Citation: 80 So.2d 365
• Parties: Mamie BAUMAN, Appellant, v. J. G. PEACOCK, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 365

80 So.2d 365

Mamie BAUMAN, Appellant, v. J. G. PEACOCK, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

May 18, 1955.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1955.

Coe & Coe and John M. Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

R. Brownlee Eggart, Pensacola, for appellee.

DREW, Chief Justice.

Appellee, plaintiff in the trial court, instituted a suit to quiet title the object of which was to declare that a judgment in favor of appellant, defendant in the lower court, did not constitute a lien on the appellee's interest in certain lands. Appellant appeals from a final decree granting the requested relief.

It appears from the record that in March, 1952, one Holmes contracted, as purchaser, to buy the subject property from one Tom D. Stone and wife. This instrument was recorded. In August, 1952, Holmes executed an assignment of 'all his rights, title and interest' in the land and the contract to appellee. This instrument was not recorded. On March 3, 1953, appellant obtained and properly recorded a judgment against Holmes for nearly $4,000. On March 30, 1953, a decree was entered in an equity suit filed by appellant against Holmes declaring said judgment to constitute an equitable lien against the subject lands. Appellee was not a party to this suit. Appellant's rights in this litigation must depend on the judgment and not the decree. These facts are not disputed and it is also undisputed that at the and, therefore, her lien is superior to the interest of appellee under the contract which was not recorded. She recognizes that at the time she recorded her judgment the subject property was in possession of appellee's tenants, but she argues that these tenants were the same persons who had been tenants of the property when it was possessed by Holmes. Therefore, she contends, there being no change in the physical occupancy, the mere fact of tenancy puts no one on inquiry and effects no constructive notice. Stockton v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 45 Fla. 590, 34 So. 897; Feinberg v. Stearns, 56 Fla. 279, 47 So. 797.

Appellee recognizes the rule of these cases but contends that it is not applicable here because under the evidence it appears that the tenants in possession at the time of recording of appellant's judgment were placed in possession by him and never were tenants of Holmes, his assignor. Therefore, appellee asserts, 'the entire difference of opinion between the parties rests on matters of fact settled in favor of the appellee by the court's findings and decree.'

In this connection the circuit court in its decree found that at the time the appellant recorded her judgment 'she had constructive notice of the appellee's interest in said property by reason of possession by the...