Joyner v. Bernard
| Decision Date | 25 November 1941 |
| Citation | 6 So.2d 533,148 Fla. 649 |
| Parties | JOYNER et al. v. BERNARD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing Feb. 24, 1942.
Rehearing Denied March 16, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sarasota County; W. T Harrison, judge.
Randolph Calhoun, of Sarasota, for appellants.
John Fite Robertson, of Sarasota, for appellees.
In November, 1926 John and Rosa Joyner executed a mortgage to Joseph C. Bernard covering properties therein described in Sarasota County. In June, 1938, the mortgage being in default, Bernard filed his bill to foreclose in which appellants and others who were permitted to intervene were designated as parties defendant. The bill was answered wherein the validity of the mortgage was challenged and an accounting was prayed for.
A master was appointed to take testimony and make findings. He recommended (1) that the marriage of John and Rosa Joyner was bigamous, and as to the latter, the mortgage was void (2) that the mortgage was usurious and subject to the statutory penalty, and that when imposed, the mortgage debt would be discharged, and (3) that Bernard had paid taxes and made improvements on the mortgaged property for which he was entitled to a lien.
Exceptions were filed to the master's report by both parties, a receiver was appointed and appellee's exceptions were overruled except as to the finding that the marriage between John and Rosa Joyner was bigamous. The final decree held that (1) notwithstanding the bigamous marriage, Rosa Joyner and her heirs were estopped to deny the validity of the mortgage, (2) that the proof failed to sustain the charge of usury, and (3) that Bernard was entitled to a decree of foreclosure and a sale of such of the properties as are necessary to pay the balance due on the mortgage. This appeal is from the final decree.
We think the chancellor was correct in holding that Rosa Joyner and her representatives were estopped from raising the validity of the mortgage. It is shown that it was executed in good faith that she was not coerced, that no fraud or deceit was practiced on her, and that while she signed with her mark, she knew what she was signing, the purpose of it, and that she and her putative husband got the money and used it to take up a prior mortgage on the same lands and to make improvements on it.
The question of whether or not the marriage of John and Rosa Joyner was bigamous is not material to the issues here since it is shown that the mortgage was executed in good faith without restraint or compulsion and that the mortgagors got the proceeds and used it on the property. It is shown that they had lived together as man and wife for many years and owned part of the property jointly and part of it in severalty. Every element essential to constitute estoppel was present. New York Life Insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co.
...judge has the same power that a jury has on disputed questions of fact. See Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Joyner v. Bernard, 148 Fla. 649, 6 So.2d 533; Goldfarb v. Robertson, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 504.' On the matter of the affirmative defenses pleaded by GC, they can be disposed o......
-
601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capital Co., s. 64-1012
...to date of order to be made on accounting and for resale; and reasonable expense of operation. See Bridier v. Burns, supra, Joyner v. Bernard, 148 Fla. 649, 6 So.2d 533; Joyner v. Bernard, 153 Fla. 372, 14 So.2d 724; Miami Gardens v. Conway, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 622; Lewis v. Shepherd, 296 K......
-
Cutri Enterprises, Inc. v. Pan Am. Bank of Miami
...judge has the same power that a jury has on disputed questions of fact. See Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Joyner v. Bernard, 148 Fla. 649, 6 So.2d 533; Goldfarb v. Robertson, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d This court held in Shaffran v. Holness, supra, that usury, as a defense, must be prov......
- Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Ass'n