Flamingo Park Warehouse Co. v. Solberg

151 So. 281, 113 Fla. 45, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1664
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 28, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 So. 281 (Flamingo Park Warehouse Co. v. Solberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flamingo Park Warehouse Co. v. Solberg, 151 So. 281, 113 Fla. 45, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1664 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was a suit on a promissory note. 'The declaration was in conventional form. Suit was first filed against R. C. Baker as Sheriff of Palm Beach County and ex officio executor. Later Sallie Lee Wasson Solberg qualified as executrix and was substituted in lieu of Baker as defendant.

A plea was filed which, although of considerable length, it is expedient to copy in full, because it constitutes the basis for the judgment to which writ of error was sued out. The plea was in the following language:

“That at the time of the issuance of the note sued upon, the said Lucy L. Rapp was the owner in fee of an undivided part of the following described real estate, situate, *46 lying and being in Palm Beach, County, Florida, and more particularly described as follows:
“Lot 1, Block 13 of Riviera, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, State of Florida, Plat Book 2, pages 90 and 91, and, as such owner and together with the remaining owners in fee of said real estate, executed and delivered to the Consolidated Realty Company, the original payee named in the said note, as security for the payment of said note, a mortgage incumbering said real estate; subject, however, to an additional mortgage incumbering said, real estate, bearing date the 8th day of December, 1924, and given by one William Bloom and Pearl M. Bloom, his wife, to George Howley, which last mentioned mortgage, being prior to the mortgage so given to the said Consolidated Realty Company, had been given to secure the payment of a ‘certain promissory note in the principal amount of $8,000.00, bearing date the 8th day of December, 1924, made by the said William Bloom and Pearl M. Bloom, his wife, to the said George Howley; that on or about the 24th day of March, 1927, the said Lucy L. Rapp, who was then a widow, and one James A. Morris, and one Evangia M. Gray, a widow, were the owners in fee of the aforesaid real estate, subject, however, to the liens of the two mortgages aforesaid; that on said date last mentioned the said George Howley was the owner and holder of the aforesaid promissory note in the principal sum of $8,000.00, and said mortgage securing the payment of the same, and the said Consolidated Realty Company was the holder of the said note sued upon, and the aforesaid mortgage given to secure the payment of the same; that on the said 24th day of March, 1927, the said George Howley, the said Lucy L. Rapp, the said James A. Morris, the said Evangia *47 M. Gray, the said Consolidated Realty Company, and one F. J. Anderson and one Sydney J. Catts, Jr., made and entered into a certain written agreement whereby it was agreed, among other things, by and between the. aforesaid parties to said agreement, as follows:
“That the time for payment of the said promissory note in the principal sum of $8,000.00 should' be extended for a'period of ten (10) years from the 15th day of June, 1927, and that the said George Howley should deliver to the said Sydney J. Catts, Jr., who should hold the same in escrow, the aforesaid promissory note for $8,000.00, and the mortgage securing the same, and a satisfaction of said mortgage, reciting full payment and satisfaction of the principal sum of $8,000.00, as evidenced by said promissory note and mortgage; that the said Lucy L. Rapp, James A. Morris and Evangia M. Gray, the owners in fee of the aforesaid real estate, should execute and deliver to the said Sydney J. Catts, Jr., likewise to be held in escrow, their good and sufficient warranty deed conveying to the said George Howley the fee simple title to the aforesaid property; that the said Lucy L. Rapp, James A. Morris and Evangia M. Gray should obtain from the said Consolidated Realty Company a satisfaction of the said mortgage given to the said Consolidated Realty Company, reciting full payment and satisfaction of the aforesaid promissory note for $6,000.00, and the mortgage securing the said promissory note, and that said satisfaction of said mortgage, likewise, should be delivered to the said Sydney J. Catts, Jr., to be held by him in escrow; that it was further provided by said agreement that the time for payment of the said note sued upon should be extended for a period of ten (10) years from the 15th day of June, 1927; that the said F. J. Anderson should be appointed as Trust Officer and that it *48 should be the duty of the said F. J. Anderson, as such Trust Officer, to collect all rents, profits and income derived from said property during the entire life of said agreement, and that he should apply the money thereby obtained as follows :
“First, to the payment of the interest on the said $8,000.00 promissory note held by the said George Howley; Second, to the payment of all taxes, levies, assessments, dues and charges upon said property, due or to become due; Third, to the payment of premiums due for adequate fire insurance protection; Fourth, to the payment of all legitimate expenses connected with the maintenance of said premises; and Fifth, to the payment of interest on the said note sued upon; and the surplus to the retirement of the indebtedness evidenced by said $8,000.00 note held by the said George Howley, and after full satisfaction of the said $8,000.00 promissory note, that he, the said F. J. Anderson, should apply the balance of such rents, profits and income to the retirement of the indebtedness evidenced by the said note sued upon; that it was further provided by said agreement that as a condition precedent to the said extension of ten (10) years for the payment of the principal sum due to the said George Howley upon the said promissory note held by him, an experimental extension for a probationary period of two (2) years should be granted for the purpose of determining the earning capacity of the aforesaid property; and that if during the said probationary period the money derived from said property as aforesaid should be sufficient to pay off the interest on the said mortgage held by the said George Howley, taxes, levies, assessments, dues, charges, fire insurance premiums, and other legitimate expenses connected with the maintenance of said property, that an additional extension of *49 eight (8) years should automatically ensue; but that unless during said probationary period of two (2) years the moneys derived from said property, as aforesaid, should be sufficient for the aforesaid purposes, the said Lucy L. Rapp, James A. Morris and Evangia M. Gray, should, as expressed by said agreement, be deemed to be ‘in default of this agreement’; And it is further provided in and by said agreement that if after the expiration of said probationary period any installment of interest on the said first mortgage, so held by the said George Howley, should mature, or any item of taxes, assessments, levies, dues, charges, fire insurance premiums, and other legitimate expenses connected with the maintenance of said .premises, should become due, and the money in the hands of the said F. J. Anderson, as aforesaid, should not be sufficient to cover said maturing obligations, then that the said Lucy L. Rapp, James A. Morris and Evangia M. Gray should, as expressed in said agreement, ‘be deemed in default’; That it was further provided in and by said agreement that should a period of sixty (60) days elapse after the said Lucy L. Rapp, James A.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Gordy v. King
180 So. 770 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
American Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City
180 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 So. 281, 113 Fla. 45, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flamingo-park-warehouse-co-v-solberg-fla-1933.