Erstling v. Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erstling v. Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church

100 So. 2d 74

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1958

DocketNo. 57-28

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 So. 2d 74 (Erstling v. Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erstling v. Trinity Wesleyan Methodist Church, 100 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Chancellor in this cause determined that a deed was' in actuality a mort[75]*75gage under Section 697.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This finding was made on the basis of controverted testimony and there being sufficient evidence in the record upon which to sustain the finding it will not be disturbed upon appeal. The Chancellor declined to include in the sum of the mortgage an amount claimed as attorney’s fees for services expended by the defendants upon the finding that these fees were incurred in connection with another controversy. The appellants having failed to demonstrate error in this finding, it must be affirmed. See Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 227, and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and FIOR-TON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Chancellor in this cause determined that a deed was' in actuality a mort[75]*75gage under Section 697.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This finding was made on the basis of controverted testimony and there being sufficient evidence in the record upon which to sustain the finding it will not be disturbed upon appeal. The Chancellor declined to include in the sum of the mortgage an amount claimed as attorney’s fees for services expended by the defendants upon the finding that these fees were incurred in connection with another controversy. The appellants having failed to demonstrate error in this finding, it must be affirmed. See Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 227, and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and FIOR-TON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 2d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erstling-v-trinity-wesleyan-methodist-church-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack