Taylor v. Rawlins

• Decision Date: 18 September 1923
• Citation: 86 Fla. 279,97 So. 714
• Parties: TAYLOR et al. v. RAWLINS et ux.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

97 So. 714

86 Fla. 279

TAYLOR et al. v. RAWLINS et ux.

Florida Supreme Court

September 18, 1923

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1923.

Suit by Daniel D. Rawlins and wife against Linda Behney Taylor and husband. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Remanded with directions.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Actor in court of equity must do equity to be allowed relief, even if defendant could not have secured it had he been actor. An actor in a court of equity comes into a court of conscience and will not be allowed unconscionable relief, nor relief otherwise than under conditions that he does equity upon his part. This rule will aid a defendant, even if he could not have secured equitable relief had he been the actor.

Conditions under which recorded real estate contract will be canceled as cloud on title stated. In a suit in equity for cancellation of a recorded contract of sale of real estate, as a cloud upon the vendor's title, the vendor may have the contract canceled of record and declared null and void upon returning to the vendee all amounts paid to the vendor by virtue of the contract, less any financial damage which the vendor may be able to show he sustained by reason of the contract, and any amount of financial benefit the vendee may have received during his possession of the property under the contract.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, judge.

COUNSEL

Clifton D. Benson and Burwell & Shipp, all of Miami, for appellants.

OPINION

BROWNE J.

This is a suit in equity for the forfeiture of a contract of purchase and sale of real estate, because the vendee defaulted in the payment of installments on the purchase price.

Mrs Linda B. Taylor entered into a contract with Daniel G. Rawlins and wife whereby she agreed to buy certain real estate for $7,500, to be paid for by an initial payment of $1,500, the assumption of two mortgages aggregating $3,500, and $500 every six months until the whole sum was paid, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually.

The vendee made the first payment of $1,500, and paid the interest for the first period, amounting to $140. She defaulted on the first installment of $500.

The contract provided, among other things, that----

'The time of payment shall be an essential part of this contract' and 'in case of a failure of the said party of the second part to make either of the payments or any part thereof, or to perform any of the covenants on her part hereby made and entered into, this contract shall, at the option of the parties of the first part, be forfeited and terminated, and the party of the second part shall forfeit all payments made by her on this contract, and such payments shall be retained by the said parties of the first part in full satisfaction and in liquidation of all damages by them sustained, and the said parties of the first part shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the premises aforesaid without being liable to any action therefor.'

It appears from the bill that on July 11th the complainants gave notice in writing to the defendant that the payment of the first installment of $500 and interest was past due, and unless paid within 30 days from date the contract would be forfeited, and in pursuance of this notice they filed 'with the clerk of the circuit court of Dade county, Florida, a formal cancellation of the contract of sale.'

After this notice was given, Rawlins and wife repossessed themselves of the property, and filed their bill in equity, in which they prayed:

That the 'supposed contract of sale may be declared null and void as a cloud upon the title of the orators; that they be removed and delivered up for cancellation; and that the clerk of the circuit court in and for Dade county be ordered to enter upon the margin of the record, in which said instrument is recorded, that the same is null and void and of no effect.'

The defendant in her answer does not resist the rescission or forfeiture of the contract, but claims that, by reason of its rescission, she is entitled to the return of all sums paid by her to the complainants.

By the decree of the chancellor, the defendant was given 20 days from the date of the decree to pay 'into the registry of the court, for the benefit of the complainants, the sums found to be due the complainants as above set out, and that, upon their failure to do so, the contract or agreement for deed entered into on the 26th day of November, 1920, wherein Daniel D. Rawlins and Cora G. Rawlins agreed to sell to the defendant, Linda Behney Taylor,' the real estate described therein, 'shall be null and void and of no force and effect.' The chancellor also found that there was due the complainants the sum of $36.49 for the taxes they paid on the property for the year 1921.

The basis of the equitable relief sought is the removal of the cloud upon the complainants' title caused by the recordation of the contract for the sale of the land. Even if the contract is inoperative by reason of the vendor's option to declare it null and of no effect, because of the vendee's default, still if it be allowed to remain on the public records of the county, it is a cloud upon the vendor's title which equity will remove by canceling the contract.

The appellee in this case has asked the aid of a court of equity and having come into equity he must abide by the rules governing equitable relief, one of which is that 'he who seeks equity must do equity.' He asks the court to relieve him from his contract and the consequences of its recordation. He desires, however, to retain all that he acquired by virtue of it, while being relieved of its inconveniences...