Holley v. May
Decision Date | 12 November 1954 |
Citation | 75 So.2d 696 |
Parties | Georgia HOLLEY, widow, Maude Holley White, widow, and Ruth Holley Marshall, Appellants, v. W. E. MAY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hull, Landis, Graham & French and J. Compton French, De Land, for appellants.
J. U. Gillespie, New Smyrna, for appellee.
The appeal is from a summary final decree entered in favor of the plaintiff below.
The suit arises out of an encroachment of a building owned by the defendants below upon an adjoining lot conveyed by the defendants to the plaintiff's predecessor in title by reference to a recorded plat which showed the deeded property to be a 50-foot lot and clearly delineated all boundaries. In the suit the plaintiff sought a declaratory decree determining his ownership of that portion of his lot upon which the building intrudes and that he has the lawful right to demolish and remove the encroaching portion of the building. In an earlier appeal in this cause the complaint was held sufficient to state a cause of action for declaratory relief, and the allegations of the complaint are set forth at length in that opinion. May v. Holley, Fla., 59 So.2d 636.
The defendants' amended answer to the complaint sets forth by way of defense to the cause that title to the strip of land upon which the building encroaches had passed to them by acquiescence in the establishment of a boundary line prior to the institution of the present suit; and that defendants' title to said strip of land had been perfected by adverse possession. In a counterclaim incorporated in the amended answer, the defendants prayed, alternatively, either for reformation or rescission of the deed from the defendants to plaintiff's predecessor in title, on the theory that there had been a mutual mistake of fact on the part of the grantor and the grantee at the time the deed was executed and delivered to plaintiff's predecessor in title. In respect to the claim of mutual mistake the significant allegation of fact in the counterclaim was that the parties did not intend to convey any portion of the land on which the building stood and that the description of the property as it appeared in the deed resulted from 'the mistaken belief of the grantors and grantee that all of Lot 251 (the lot conveyed) lay north of said dwelling.'
On motion of the plaintiff, the chancellor rejected the defenses asserted by the defendants and entered the final decree from which this appeal is taken.
We have the view that the chancellor was correct in ruling that the matters set forth in the answer and counterclaim did not constitute valid grounds for rescission or cancellation.
It is well established that reformation or rescission of an instrument on the ground of mutual mistake of fact cannot be claimed against a third-party bona fide grantee without notice. 45 Am.Jur., Reformation of Instruments, Secs. 68 and 69, pp. 624-625. The rule in this respect is that the right of reformation stands on the same footing as any other latent equity, and as recognized in the case of Barlow v. Stevens, 112 Fla. 57, 150 So. 245, 246, where See also Bright v. Buckman, C.C.Fla., 39 F. 243; annotations 44 A.L.R. 87; 102 A.L.R. 829. Therefore, while the defendants' assertions that the deed 'lacked the mutual assent necessary to a valid contract' might have been sufficient as a predicate for rescission or cancellation against the original grantee, the contention is not available against the plaintiff, who is the successor in title of the original grantee of a deed that was valid on its face, and who is, so far as shown by the pleadings, a bona fide grantee without notice. Certainly the mere fact of possession of the area in question by the defendants, subsequent to their conveyance, would not put a purchaser on notice of any potential right in such grantors to cancel or rescind the deed as to the entire lot, but would, at best, only put one upon inquiry as to equitable claims against the particular strip in their possession by way of reformation or otherwise. Morton v. Smith, 133 Fla. 260, 183 So. 475.
As to the right of the defendants to reform the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCoy v. Love
...the deed was only voidable in equity, then the equitable defenses of laches and of a bona fide purchaser are available. See Holley v. May, 75 So.2d 696 (Fla.1954); Bryson v. Bridges, 51 Fla. 395, 41 So. 28 A bona fide purchaser has the right to rely on the record title of his grantor, but t......
-
Harkless v. Laubhan
...for value and without notice." Fla. Masters Packing, Inc. v. Craig, 739 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Holley v. May, 75 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1954) ).Because we have concluded that the Laubhans had implied notice of Harkless's retention of the right to receive income under t......
-
Florida Masters Packing, Inc. v. Craig
...the error. Reformation is generally allowed against all persons except a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. Holley v. May, 75 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla.1954) (citing 45 Am.Jur., Reformation of Instruments, Secs. 68 and 69, pp. 624-625). Notice sufficient to eliminate the transferee......
-
Flanigan's Enterprises v. Shoppes at 18TH
...purchasers for value and without notice, Fla. Masters Packing, Inc. v. Craig, 739 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Holley v. May, 75 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla.1954)), we affirm the reformation of the 1992 amended settlement WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur. 1. SKHHP is a successor in interest ......
-
Procedural remedies
...grounds by Higgins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co ., 894 So.2d 5 (Fla. 2004). 8. May v. Holley , 59 So.2d 636 (Fla. 1952), same case , 75 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1954). §17:30.1.1 Elements of Cause of Action — 1st DCA The Florida Supreme Court explained: This Court has long held, however, that indi......
-
More than you wanted to know about the doctrine of reformation.
...507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987); Porter v. Meigs, 74 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1954). (39) Smith v. Pattishall, 176 So. 568 (Fla. 1937); Holley v. May, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1954); Nall v. Rayborn, 451 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1984); Roberts v. Hart, 573 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1990); Sanders v. Thom......