EQUITY CAPITAL COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
601 WEST 26 CORP., A/K/A 601 WEST 26 CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND TRUNK CORP., A/K/A TRUNK CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a mortgage foreclosure where the mortgagors defaulted on a payment, triggering an acceleration clause. The mortgagors sought equitable relief by tendering the arrears, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mere assertion of no impairment to security is insufficient for equitable relief; a showing of inequity from foreclosure is also required.
No, a mortgagor is not entitled to equitable relief from default and foreclosure solely by admitting default and tendering arrears; there must also be a showing of inequity resulting from the foreclosure.
“The mere statement in an answer to the effect that the security will not be impaired, is not sufficient to justify the chancellor's relieving the mortgagor from his default”
Establishes the insufficiency of a mere assertion of no impairment to security for equitable relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEquity Capital Company (appellant) initiated foreclosure proceedings on two mortgages against 601 West 26 Corp. and Trunk Corp. (appellees) due to a m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Acceleration Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant, as mortgagee, commenced proceedings against defendants-ap-pellees, mortgagors, to foreclose two mortgages, one for $155,000 and the second for $125,000.
The mortgages contained provisions for the entire debt to become due upon the failure to make a single payment. Appel-lees failed to make payment, and appellant exercised its option to accelerate the due date of the note, and instituted suit to foreclose. Appellees admitted their default, and requested the court to exercise its equity jurisdiction, thereby relieving appellees of their default, by tendering payment of the full amount of the arrears.
The trial court permitted this action and reinstated the mortgage and note. Appel*770lants are before this court claiming error on the part of the chancellor.
The mere statement in an answer to the effect that the security will not be impaired, is not sufficient to justify the chancellor’s relieving the mortgagor from his default1 There must also be a showing of inequity resulting from the foreclosure.2 This necessary element is patently missing from the record before us.
Accordingly, the interlocutory order appealed is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
601 W. 26 Corp. v. Equity Cap. Co., 169 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
-
601 W. 26 Corp. v. Equity Cap. Corp., 169 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1964)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 166 So. 2d 769.…
Authorities Cited
- Lieberbaum v. Surfcomber Hotel Corp., 122 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)