Brannon v. Hills
| Decision Date | 18 July 1933 |
| Citation | 149 So. 556,111 Fla. 491 |
| Parties | BRANNON v. HILLS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Metta V. Hills against Etta Brannon. From an adverse decree defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
BROWN J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, judge.
Thomas A. Dyer, of Tampa, for appellant.
T. E Lucas and John J. Twomey, both of Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Etta Brannon, applied to a representative of the complainant below, Metta V. Hills, for a loan of money with which to pay off a mortgage on the property against which the decree was rendered, that is now before us on this appeal. In consideration of the loan made, the defendant gave a mortgage on the property that at the time stood incumbered by an outstanding mortgage, for the purpose of discharging which, there is substantial evidence to show was the object of the new loan. The mortgage given to secure the new loan was apparently valid at the time. Subsequent events disclosed that it was unenforceable because based on a promissory note signed only by a married woman as maker, she being also the mortgagor. The present suit was brought on an amended bill framed in a double aspect; that is, to recover the money lent either by charging the married woman's property for it, as on an agreement in writing for its benefit, or by decreeing subrogation to the first mortgage for the purpose of discharging which the money procured on the subsequent mortgage had been applied for and obtained. The chancellor denied charging the property as that of a married woman subject to being charged in equity, but decreed subrogation. On this appeal the correctness of the final decree is questioned on its merits, both as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and the complainant's evidence to support it.
In our recent decisions in Federal Land Bank of Columbia v Godwin, 145 So. 883, 885, and Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Dekle, 148 So. 756 (opinion filed March 3, 1933), not yet reported [in State report], this court has definitely aligned itself with the prevailing rule now generally obtaining in the United States to the effect that one who loans money on a defective mortgage for the purpose of discharging a prior valid mortgage on the same property, where it is made to appear that the money is to be used for that purpose, is ordinarily entitled to subrogation to the rights of the prior mortgage. Jones on Mortgages (7th Ed.) vol. 2, p. 413, par. 874e; 25 R. C. L. 1343. The holding of Boley v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 121, 72 So. 644, L. R. A. 1917A, 734, has not been considered by us, in the two cases recently decided, as having ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc. (In re Judd)
...which had rejected the application of equitable and conventional subrogation to grant similar relief to a volunteer. In Brannon v. Hills, 111 Fla. 491, 149 So. 556 (1933), the Supreme Court of Florida again solidified the principle of equitable subrogation in Florida jurisprudence. In Brann......
- Minick v. Minick
-
Town of River Junction v. Maryland Casualty Co.
...that which is plainly just and right. Not all courts have applied it as stated above, but the Florida court has. Brannon v. Hills, 111 Fla. 491, 149 So. 556. We apply it here. The surety was bound to see that all labor and material claims were paid, and to carry the job to completion. The c......
-
Sherman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...to the rights of others.” Fed. Land Bank of Columbia v. Godwin, 107 Fla. 537, 145 So. 883, 885 (1933); see also Brannon v. Hills, 111 Fla. 491, 149 So. 556, 557 (1933); Eastern Nat'l Bank v. Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 508 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). A party's entitlement to subroga......
-
Equitable subrogation: the evolution of the volunteer and the continued irrelevance of constructive notice.
...of a volunteer. Nowhere is this alteration clearer than in the final case on subrogation issued that same year: Brannon v. Hills, 149 So. 556 (Fla. A borrower, Brannon, gave a mortgage to a lender, Hills. (45) The proceeds of the loan were used to satisfy an existing mortgage on the propert......
-
Whose shoes to use: achieving a subrogation footing in the wave of foreclosures.
...there is no limit to the circumstances that may arise in which this doctrine may be applied. (5) Later in 1933, in Brannon v. Hills, 149 So. 556 (Fla. 1933), the Supreme Court expanded the doctrine to apply when the refinancing mortgage is defective or even void. The Brannon court noted tha......