Hankins v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. F-397,F-397
• Citation: 169 So.2d 526
• Parties: L. M. HANKINS, a widow, and N. Lee Talbott, unmarried, Appellants, v. TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a corporation, St. Regis Paper Company, a corporation, and the Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a banking corporation, as escrow agent, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 526

169 So.2d 526

L. M. HANKINS, a widow, and N. Lee Talbott, unmarried, Appellants, v. TITLE AND TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a corporation, St. Regis Paper Company, a corporation, and the Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a banking corporation, as escrow agent, Appellees.

No. F-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 1964.

Barton & Burwell, Gainesville, for appellants.

Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, of Mahoney, Hadlow, Chambers & Adams, Jacksonville, for appellees.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs in a suit for a declaratory decree and other relief have taken this interlocutory appeal from an order entered by the Circuit Court for Clay County dismissing their second amended complaint but with leave to file a further amended complaint against one of the three defendants only. The question before us in this appeal is whether the said order was properly entered in the light of the rules applicable to declaratory judgment proceedings.

The essential allegations of the plaintiffs allegations are, briefly stated, as follows: That the plaintiffs, a Mrs. Hankins and her daughter, after negotiations taking place prior to December, 1952, entered an agreement with the defendant St. Regis Paper Company under which they agreed to sell, and St. Regis agreed to buy all lands the legal title to which was held by Mrs. Hankins and which were located in a specified area of Clay County, Florida. That, instead of requesting Mrs. Hankins to furnish a list of all such properties to which she held legal title, St. Regis undertook to copy the description of all properties listed in her name upon the tax rolls of Clay County, including many land parcels that had, unknown to St. Regis' agents, been previously conveyed to other parties by Mrs. Hankins--which error she did not detect. That the same list of land parcels was used in an option agreement for the sale and purchase of the lands and in a timber agreement for the sale and purchase of timber, both of which agreements were entered into between Mrs. Hankins and St. Regis on or about December 31, 1952.

The plaintiffs in their said complaint further allege: That under a provision of the said timber agreement Mrs. Hankins was required, at her expense, to secure the issuance of title insurance by the defendant title insurance company, so she applied for such a policy in the amount of $300,000, naming her and St. Regis as the beneficiaries therein 'as their interests may appear.' That the said title insurance company refused to issue title insurance upon the lands involved until and unless all payments under the said timber agreement were made to the defendant bank as escrow agent, and further required her to enter into an indemnifying agreement with it, the title insurance company. That thereupon Mrs. Hankins and St. Regis on or about March 31, 1953, entered into an agreement to amend a paragraph of their said timber agreement, under which amendment the balance due upon the purchase price in the amount of $198,000 was to be paid as follws: $70,000 to be paid between January 2 and 10, 1954 (which amount was properly paid to Mrs. Hankins), and the sum of $16,000 was to be paid on or before December 30 of the eight successive years to the defendant bank as escrow agent (such payments being made for the eight successive years of 1955 to 1962, inclusive).

The said complaint further avers: That, as demanded by the said title insurance company, Mrs. Hankins and that company on or about March 31, 1953, entered into an indemnifying agreement. That among its many provisions is one that, upon receipt by the defendant bank of every payment under the said timber agreement as amended, the said bank shall hold and refrain from delivering the money to Mrs. Hankins until it shall have notified the defendant title insurance company in writing concerning the payment and shall have obtained from the latter company a written release of any claim it may have against the said funds.

Finally, the plaintiffs allege in their said complaint: That the defendant title insurance surance company has suffered no loss by virtue of its said policy, yet it has asserted a claim to the entire sum of $153,000 which the defendant bank holds as escrow agent. That the claims of third parties to some of the land involved could not exceed $25,000, and so the bank should release to Mrs. Hankins no less than $125,000.

The plaintiffs pray in their second amended complaint for the following relief: declaratory relief as to the construction of the said indemnifying agreement; reformation of the said option agreement, a deed executed by Mrs. Hankins to St. Regis in pursuance of such option agreements, and the said timber agreement, in which instruments, there were mutual mistakes of fact with respect to descriptions of the property involved; for temporary restrictive and mandatory relief against the defendnat bank; for declaratory relief as to the extent of Mrs. Hankins'...