MacNeill v. O'Neal
| Decision Date | 25 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 38287,38287 |
| Citation | 238 So.2d 614 |
| Parties | Malcolm G. MacNEILL, Petitioner, v. Maston G. O'NEAL, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ray H. Pearson, of Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson and Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for petitioner.
Robert C. Ward, of Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, which allegedly conflicts with Hall v. Florida Board of Pharmacy 1 and Cerniglia v. C & D Farms, Inc., 2 and other cases.
The parties to this cause entered into an agreement involving the purchase of certain real property. O'Neal, respondent herein, held an option to buy the property and MacNeill, petitioner herein, was in the position of loaning various sums of money for the purchase in return for what was ultimately a one-half interest in the property.
Respondent failed to meet his obligations under the agreement and petitioner was forced to pay out further sums of money in order to prevent foreclosure of the purchase money mortgage. Respondent then executed a deed of conveyance absolute on its face, purporting to convey the remaining one-half interest in the land so that petitioner then held legal title to all the property. This deed was accompanied by a letter from respondent stating that if he failed to send the sum due by June 24, 1965, he waived all further rights to the property.
The facts surrounding the transactions between the parties are set out in greater detail in the District Court opinion reported at 216 So.2d 465.
Petitioner MacNeill brought suit to have the deed declared a mortgage. The trial court held that the instrument in question was in fact a warranty deed rather than a mortgage or other security device. The trial court held, however, that O'Neal was required to repay MacNeill one-half of the sum of $17,500 given him by MacNeill for an undivided one-half interest in the land and in addition, one-half of the sum of $26,627.09, the amount paid by MacNeill on account of delinquent mortgage installments and taxes.
The District Court reversed that part of the trial court's order requiring respondent to pay sums of money to petitioner for purchase of the property after the respondent had divested himself of any interest in the property. As to the ruling of the trial court on the nature of the instrument of July 2, 1964, the District Court stated: 3
The holding of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hankerson
...the appellee can present any argument supported by the record even if not expressly asserted in the lower court. See MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla.1970). In MacNeill, this Court cited prior cases holding that an appellee “not aggrieved by the lower court's decision need not fi......
-
State v. Stephens
...for its holding. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); In re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla.1970); MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So.2d 614 (Fla.1970); Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So.2d 494 (Fla.1963); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So.2d 222 (Fla.1962); Brookridge Community P......
-
Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA
...the appellee can present any argument supported by the record even if not expressly asserted in the lower court. See MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla.1970). In MacNeill, this Court cited prior cases holding that an appellee "not aggrieved by the lower court's decision need not fi......
-
State v. Hankerson
...the appellee can present any argument supported by the record even if not expressly asserted in the lower court. See MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 1970). In MacNeill, this Court cited prior cases holding that an appellee "not aggrieved by the lower court's decision need not ......
-
Tipping the ole tipsy coachman over in his grave: an inequity of appellate review.
...2d 1313, 1314 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1990) (Sharp, J., dissenting) (citing In re Yohn's Estate, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970); MacNeil v. O'Neal, 238 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1970); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1962); Greenbriar Condo. Apts. II Assoc., Inc. v. Koch, 480 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. ......
-
Tales of the tipsy coachman: being right for the wrong reason: the tipsy coachman is alive and well and living in Florida.
...judgment and is not limited in the appellate courts to the theories of recovery stated by the trial court" (quoting MacNeill v. O'Neal, 238 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. (19) Keech v. Yousef, 815 So. 2d 718, 719 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2002) ("In the absence of fundamental error, an appellate court will n......