Markell v. Hilpert
Decision Date | 05 December 1939 |
Citation | 192 So. 392,140 Fla. 842 |
Parties | MARKELL et al. v. HILPERT et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Suit by Anna I. Hilpert, a widow, and others, against Frank E Markell, a widower, and others to have a deed executed by plaintiffs to defendants declared a mortgage. From decree for plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith, judge.
Dickinson & Dickinson and Troy C. Musselwhite, all of Orlando, for appellants.
Giles & Gurney and Maguire & Voorhis, all of Orlando, for appellees.
The parties in this opinion will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as they appeared in the lower court. On June 15 1931, the plaintiffs executed and delivered to the defendant Frank E. Markell, a deed conveying certain valuable business property situated in the City of Orlando. The deed is, viz:
The grantee in the above deed, joined by his wife, executed and delivered to the grantors, the plaintiffs below, some three or four days thereafter an option to repurchase the lands described in the deed and the option is, viz:
'This Agreement, Made and entered into by and between Frank E. Markell and Kate S. Markell, of Connellsville, Pennsylvania, parties of the first part, and Anna I. Hilpert, a widow and unmarried, and Charles R. Hilpert and Minnie P. Hilpert, his wife, of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, parties of the second part.
'Witnesseth; That the parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) dollars, and other valuable considerations, to them in hand paid by the parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant and give unto the parties of the second part, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, an option to purchase the following described real estate in Orange County, Florida, to-wit:
'Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot Four (4) of Block Twenty-nine (29) of R. R. Reid's Addition to Orlando, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book C, pages 62-3, Public Records of Orange County, Florida, run South 133.71 feet, East 100 feet, North 133.71, West 100 feet to point of beginning: at and for the price of Eighty-six Thousand and No/100($86,000.00) Dollars cash.
'On the parties of the second part exercising said option, and making payment, the first parties will deliver a good and sufficient warranty deed, free and clear of all incumbrances, to said property, together with Abstract of Title.
'In the event the parties of the second part exercise this option, the taxes for the year in which same is exercised shall be prorated, the first parties paying up to the time of the closing of the transaction, and the second parties for the remainder of that year; said taxes to be prorated on the basis of the previous year's assessment.
'It Is Agreed by and between the parties hereto that the second parties can exercise this option by notice to Frank E. Markell, and payment to him of the said Eighty-six Thousand and No/100 (86,000.00) Dollars on delivery of said deed, which two are to be concurrent, or the second parties may deposit said amount of money in Florida Bank at Orlando, Orlando, Florida, for the first parties, to be delivered on the delivery of the warranty deed aforesaid, together with abstract showing merchantable title, and the delivery of the deed to be at Florida Bank at Orlando, Orlando, Florida, in either instance.
'This option shall expire at two o'clock P. M., on the 15th day of June, A. D. 1933.
'Time is the essence of this agreement.
'In Witness Whereof the parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals, this the 18th day of June, A. D. 1931.
'Frank E. Markell [Seal.]
'Kate S. Markell [Seal.]
'Signed, sealed and Delivered in Presence of Us:
'R. S. Matthews
'Josephine Richey.'
For a considerable length of time prior to June 15, 1931, plaintiffs below were the owners of the real estate, above described, but the same was subject to mortgages, except thirty feet on the corner, but uncancelled tax certificates appeared against the entire tract. A. T. O'Neill, a real estate broker, maintained an office on part of the property, supra, and Charles R. Hilpert applied to him for assistance in obtaining a loan of $60,000 with which to refinance all the mortgages and tax lien indebtedness then existing against the property.
Mr O'Neill approached the defendant, Frank E. Markell, for a loan of $60,000 and offered as security therefor the real estate described in the deed. The defendant made it known that he was not interested in making the loan. The defendant and his partner, Mr. Jull, subsequently offered $88,000 in cash and certain property located at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. Orange State Oil Co.
... ... force and effect. See Watkins v. Burnstein, 152 Fla ... 828, 14 So.2d 569; Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842, ... 192 So. 392; Elliott v. Connor, 63 Fla. 408, 58 So ... 241; Stovall v. Stokes, 94 Fla. 717, 115 So. 828; ... ...
-
Blackwelder v. D'Ercole Enterprises, Inc.
...Fla. 169, 198 So. 796. Its nature as a security interest may be established by parol evidence. Stovall v. Stokes, supra; Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842, 192 So. 392; Torreyson v. Dutton, For the reasons stated the decree appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceed......
-
Murray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...for the amount he received, $65,000, and paid income taxes on a capital gain of $49,209.69. As a result of an action by Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842, 192 So. 392, the Florida courts held the transaction to be a mortgage instead of a sale, and held that Hilpert could redeem after an acco......
-
Ball v. Ball
... ... 614] error ... is correct and the burden of showing reversible error rests ... upon the party asserting it. Markell v. Hilpert, 140 ... Fla. 842, 192 So. 392. Where the findings of the Chancellor ... are supported by the evidence, or where the evidence is ... ...