Harris v. Requa
| Decision Date | 21 April 1932 |
| Citation | 105 Fla. 312,140 So. 911 |
| Parties | HARRIS et ux. v. REQUA et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Decision.
Suit by Sarah B. Requa, as sole beneficiary under the will of William A. Requa, deceased, and others, against Fred D. Harris and wife. Decree for complainants, and respondents appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F Atkinson, judge.
Wilder & Jacobsen, of Miami, for appellants.
Stapp Gourley, Vining & Ward, of Miami, for appellees.
This cause is here upon appeal from a final decree of the circuit court of Dade county, rendered in favor of Sarah B. Requa et al., and against Fred D. Harris et al.
The main question presented for review revolves around various and sundry sales contracts trust agreements, complicated transfers, and assignments of interest in lot 22, block 14 section B, of Coral Gables, Dade county, Fla. This case may be considered as typical of a great number of like cases coming from localities where complicated real estate dealings were carried on during and subsequent to the boom period in Florida, and in a measure likewise demonstrates the gigantic task placed upon the trial and appellate courts to untangle and if possible finally adjudicate the status of those persons who still have rights in such property.
The main facts arising from the various transfers and agreements culminating in this suit may be briefly stated as follows:
(1) George E. Merrick, being the owner of lot 22, block 14, section B, Coral Gables, Dade county, Fla., on which there was a residence and garage, on April 20, 1923, joined by his wife, made and executed a mortgage on the above premises in favor of the Calvert Mortgage Company of Maryland, to secure the sum of $2,750, which mortgage was recorded May 18, 1923.
(2) On October 1, 1923, Merrick, joined by his wife, made and executed a contract for deed to convey the said premises to Elwin S. Piper and wife for $10,500, payable $5,500 cash, and $5,000 in twenty-four quarterly payments, the said agreement making no specific mention of the above Calvert mortgage, but it covenants to convey the premises to the Pipers by good and sufficient warranty deed 'free of all encumbrances'; the said agreement being recorded December 12, 1924.
(3) On November 13, 1924, the Pipers executed and delivered a sales contract covering said premises to Arthur W. Emmons for $12,750, with $3,722.07 payable in cash on February 1, 1925, $5,000 by promissory note payable in twenty equal quarterly installments and the assumption of $4,027.93 balance due from the Pipers to the Merricks on the Merrick-Piper contract; the said contract being recorded December 9, 2924.
(4) On December 12, 1924, the Pipers assigned their interest in the contract with the Merricks to the Miami Bank & Trust Company as trustee, by dual instruments executed simultaneously, one a simple assignment to which was attached the Merrick contract, and the other a trust agreement, to whom Emmons agreed to make payments on the $4,027.93 still due the Merricks.
(5) On April 30, 1925, the Merricks still being owners of the title to said property, conveyed the same to the Coral Gables corporation, 'subject, nevertheless, to all encumbrances of record * * * to be assumed and paid by the said grantee (Coral Gables Corp.) when legally due and payable,' which would include the Calvert mortgage.
(6) Upon Emmons completing the payments of $4,027.93 to the Coral Gables Corporation, due the Merricks as part of the purchase price in the contract from Pipers, the Miami Bank & Trust Company as trustee required the Coral Gables Corporation to execute to it a warranty deed to the premises, on February 24, 1927; thus the title to the premises, and the Pipers' agreement to convey to Emmons, merged in said trust company.
(7) On July 15, 1927, there still being due $3,875 on the $5,000 note from Emmons to the Pipers under the Piper-Emmons contract of sale, the Pipers assigned their interest in said contract and note to Fred D. Harris.
(8) On March 15, 1928, Arthur W. Emmons, as vendee in the Piper to Emmons contract, assigned his interest in the property to William A. Requa, who brought suit for the specific performance of the Piper-Emmons contract, but died subsequent to the institution of this suit, leaving his wife sole beneficiary of his estate, and who became complainant below and the principal appellee here.
(9) On September 4, 1929, the Miami Bank & Trust Company as trustee, executed and delivered a deed to the premises to said Fred D. Harris, who was at the time the assignee of the Pipers' interest in the Piper-Emmons contract on which Harris had received $900 from Emmons and Requa in payments as such assignee, leaving about $3,000 plus interest still due him on the said note made to the Pipers.
(10) Simultaneously with the acquisition by Fred D. Harris of the Pipers' interest in the Piper-Emmons contract, there was conveyed by the Coral Gables Corporation to the South Florida Trust Company as trustee, legal title to two other lots in the Biltomore section of Coral Gables for the purpose of indemnifying the said Pipers or their assigns (Harris) against the payment of the Calvert mortgage, and the indemnifying agreement having later become effective because of a default in payment of interest on the said Calvert mortgage by the Coral Gables Corporation (as provided for in the trust agreement), the trust company on February 26, 1929, conveyed the said above two lots to Fred D. Harris, thus Harris became the holder of the title not only in said two lots but also the premises here involved and the Emmons note.
(11) Previous to the above conveyance, William Gleichmann, the owner of the Calvert mortgage, on November 22, 1928, instituted suit to foreclose. On the 15th day of February, 1929, there remained still due on the said Piper-Emmons contract and note held by Fred D. Harris, the sum of $3,000 principal, plus interest; and two months later (on April 15, 1929) Requa, as vendee, under the Emmons contract, having assumed payment of the above note, made a conditional tender to Harris of $3,171.70, if Harris would convey or cause to be conveyed to said Requa the premises free and clear of all incumbrances, and particularly free and clear of the Calvert mortgage; this Harris failed and refused to do. Subsequently on the 5th day of July, 1929, Requa, to protect his interest, paid the sum of $3,875.93 to obtain a satisfaction of the final decree obtained in the foreclosure by Gleichmann of the Calvert mortgage which the Merricks and their successors in the legal title to said lot 22 were bound to convey free and clear of the Calvert mortgage.
This specific performance suit was instituted by Requa in order to compel conveyance by Harris to Requa of the legal title to the said premises according to the terms of the contracts from the Merricks to Pipers and from Pipers to Emmons and from Emmons to Requa; and require him to allow credit or set-off in favor of Requa of the amount paid to satisfy the Calvert mortgage as against the amount due on account of Piper-Emmons contract, and to have personal decree against Harris for any excess paid by Requa to satisfy the mortgage decree over the balance due on the note.
After a final hearing the chancellor entered a decree finding that the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in their bill of complaint and requiring Fred D. Harris and wife to specifically perform and execute a deed to the said property to Requa as assignee of the agreement (Exhibit B to bill of complaint) made by the Pipers to Emmons, and in default the decree shall operate as a conveyance of said property from the said Fred D. Harris and wife to Sarah B Requa as sole beneficiary under the last will and testament...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Free v. Free, 5D05-2393.
...the property with that knowledge. He therefore acquired the property subject to the contract executed by Marion. See Harris v. Requa, 105 Fla. 312, 140 So. 911, 914 (1932) ("The rule is well settled that `one purchasing property with notice that the grantor had contracted to convey it to an......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown
...the contract in the same manner as his grantor would have been liable to do, had he not transferred the legal title. See Harris v. Requa, 105 Fla. 312, 140 So. 911, cases there cited. We do not have to go that far in this case, however. Here the insurance companies voluntarily discharged th......
- State v. Crandon
-
Haimovitz v. Robb
...interests are in all other respects of equal merit, he has the better equity who is prior in point of time.' See, also, Harris v. Requa, 105 Fla. 312, 140 So. 911. The final decree in this case awarded specific performance and compensation for the residue which the vendor appeared unable to......