Layton v. White

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Layton v. White

778 So. 2d 428, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 943, 2001 WL 85512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-1200

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 428 (Layton v. White) 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

Layton v. White, 778 So. 2d 428, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 943, 2001 WL 85512 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEUS, J.

This case is another tragic example of why competent lawyers should be involved in real estate transactions.

In 1980, David and Janelle White purchased a home for $63,000. They paid $10,000 down in cash, gave a note secured by a first mortgage for $30,000 and a second note and mortgage¹ to Clifford Na-delhoffer as evidence of a $23,000 loan.

Janelle White, a non-lawyer, prepared the document which has in large bold letters on its face “mortgage deed and note.” The document can best be described as an “all-in-one,” office supply store, short-form document bearing no resemblance to a typical mortgage which secures a separate note. After filling in a few blanks, Ms. White typed in: “If and when said property is sold by Mortgagor, this Note to be paid on demand.”

Nadelhoffer died in 1995 and the personal representative of his estate assigned the document to appellants Joyanna Layton and Jacquelin Fusco. After 19 years of nine percent interest,² the principal and interest due on the loan exceeded the original purchase price of the property of $63,000. To make matters worse, the house is now worth less than $63,000.

Layton and Fusco filed a mortgage foreclosure suit in 1997 and the parties began settlement negotiations. A verbal settlement agreement was reached which was transcribed by a court reporter. The agreement called for a note and a mortgage which would replace the document.

[429]*429After the note and mortgage deed were prepared, the Whites refused to sign. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel which the court denied. ■ At the conclusion of the trial, the Whites moved for involuntary dismissal on Count V, which alleged a bona fide dispute as to whether a maturity date was ascertainable.

Not only did the trial judge dismiss the plaintiffs’ foreclosure suit, as well he found that the document expired on December 12, 2000. The net effect was to hold that the plaintiffs were owed nothing on the 20-year-old financial obligation. We find that unjust. The refusal of the Whites to sign the note and mortgage was totally unreasonable. This case is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to enforce the settlement agreement and rescind its order allowing fees and costs to the Whites.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

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

PLEUS, J.

This case is another tragic example of why competent lawyers should be involved in real estate transactions.

In 1980, David and Janelle White purchased a home for $63,000. They paid $10,000 down in cash, gave a note secured by a first mortgage for $30,000 and a second note and mortgage¹ to Clifford Na-delhoffer as evidence of a $23,000 loan.

Janelle White, a non-lawyer, prepared the document which has in large bold letters on its face “mortgage deed and note.” The document can best be described as an “all-in-one,” office supply store, short-form document bearing no resemblance to a typical mortgage which secures a separate note. After filling in a few blanks, Ms. White typed in: “If and when said property is sold by Mortgagor, this Note to be paid on demand.”

Nadelhoffer died in 1995 and the personal representative of his estate assigned the document to appellants Joyanna Layton and Jacquelin Fusco. After 19 years of nine percent interest,² the principal and interest due on the loan exceeded the original purchase price of the property of $63,000. To make matters worse, the house is now worth less than $63,000.

Layton and Fusco filed a mortgage foreclosure suit in 1997 and the parties began settlement negotiations. A verbal settlement agreement was reached which was transcribed by a court reporter. The agreement called for a note and a mortgage which would replace the document.

[429]*429After the note and mortgage deed were prepared, the Whites refused to sign. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel which the court denied. ■ At the conclusion of the trial, the Whites moved for involuntary dismissal on Count V, which alleged a bona fide dispute as to whether a maturity date was ascertainable.

Not only did the trial judge dismiss the plaintiffs’ foreclosure suit, as well he found that the document expired on December 12, 2000. The net effect was to hold that the plaintiffs were owed nothing on the 20-year-old financial obligation. We find that unjust. The refusal of the Whites to sign the note and mortgage was totally unreasonable. This case is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to enforce the settlement agreement and rescind its order allowing fees and costs to the Whites.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 428, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 943, 2001 WL 85512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layton-v-white-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack