Sellars, Et Ux. v. Pickens
This text of 190 So. 615 (Sellars, Et Ux. v. Pickens) 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.
Opinion
AVe are confronted by two appeals from two decrees in a mortgage foreclosure but they present the sole question of whether or not when the mortgagee, under contract, exercises his option to declare the whole debt due for default in the performance of one of the covenants in the mortgage must he necessarily incur the corresponding obligation of remitting all of the capitalized and unearned interest at the date of the default by the mortgagor.
The mortgage was given to secure a note representing the balance due on the purchase price of real estate. The note provides that it be payable at “$15.00 per month after date with interest at the rate of none per cent per annum from ........ until paid.”
The question as stated assumes that interest was in fact capitalized or computed in advance and was included in the principal. If this had been true, there might be substance to appellant’s contention but the chancellor had this question before him when he entered the decree appealed from and he held in effect that such was not the case.
After all is said, the question presented is one of fact which the Chancellor settled and his decree finds ample support in the record. It is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
190 So. 615, 139 Fla. 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellars-et-ux-v-pickens-fla-1939.