E. B. SMALLEY, ALSO KNOWN AS ERNEST B. SMALLEY, AND HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOVEREIGN FINANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
In a vendor's lien foreclosure action against vendees in possession of land under a sales contract, the Florida Supreme Court held that while tender of a deed is required for suits seeking specific performance or rescission, it is not a condition precedent to foreclosure suits. Rather, the vendor need only allege readiness and ability to convey, allowing the equity court to order deed deposit as a protective measure before enforcing payment.
Tender of a deed is not a condition precedent to a foreclosure suit for a vendor's lien against a vendee in possession. The vendor need only aver that it has performed its obligations or stands ready, willing, and able to fulfill them, with an offer to convey or tender of a deed in court being sufficient. This rule differs from that applied in specific performance or rescission cases.
“In a case of foreclosure of a vendor's lien as against his vendee in possession of lands under a sale contract, the vendor or complainant must, when asking for the enforcement of the lien, show that he is not himself in default, by averring that so far as he is concerned his obligations have been fulfilled or that he is ready, able and willing to fulfill them at the proper time.”
Establishes the standard for vendor's lien foreclosure pleading requirements, distinguishing them from specific performance cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSovereign Finance Company, a vendor under a real estate sales contract, sought to foreclose its vendor's lien against the Smalleys, vendees in possess…
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 Dependent Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
The court below over-ruled general and special demurrers to a bill of complaint seeking foreclosure against vendees for the purchase price of lands which had been bought by appellee under a typical real estate sales contract common to land transactions in Florida during the days of the now vanished “boom”.
The only point of law presented by the appeal which merits discussion is whether tender of a deed by vendor before suit for foreclosure of a vendor’s lien is a condition precedent to a suit in equity against the vendee in possession, as distinguished from an action for specific performance of the contract of purchase, or for its rescission.
In this jurisdiction the rule seems to have become established beyond controversy to the effect that where the suit *34is for specific performance, or for rescission, of a real estate sales contract, that the complainant cannot proceed against the defendant without alleging actual performance of the agreement on his part or a tender and refusal when the covenants for payment of the purchase price and conveyance of title are considered dependent. Sanford v. Cloud, 17 Fla. 532; Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95, 21 So. 807; McKinnon v. Johnson, 54 Fla. 538, 45 So. 451; Booth v. Bobbitt, 94 Fla. 704, 114 So. 513; Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103, 125 So. 521.
The bill of complaint in the instant case did not allege tender of a deed by vendor and a refusal by the vendee. It did, however, aver that the complainant (the vendor under the sales contract which was made a part of the bill of complaint by apt words) had performed all of the covenants and provisions of said sales contract and said notes on its part to be kept and performed, and thatt it stood ready, willing and able to convey the land involved by good and sufficient warranty deed of conveyance to the defendants (vendees) upon their compliance with the terms and provisions of said sales contract and promissory notes. It also alleges that vendees had been let into possession of the lands under the sales contract and were still in possession of the lands under such contract without having made the payments covenanted to be made by them.
In a case of foreclosure of a vendor’s lien as against his vendee in possession of lands under a sale contract, the vendor or complainant must, when asking for the enforcement of the lien, show that he is not himself in default, by averring that so far as he is concerned his obligations have been fulfilled or that he is ready, able and willing to fulfill them at the proper time. It is sufficient to make in the complaint an offer to convey, or to tender a deed in court, the rule being different in eases of foreclosure from that which is enforced when the vendor is proceeding at law on *35the contract, or in equity for specific performance or rescission.
The reason for this difference is that where vendee is in possession of the land under a sales contract, and suit is brought to enforce .payment of the balance unpaid on the purchase price, the equity court has full power before enforcing the lien, to protect the possession and interests of the purchaser by ordering the execution of a deed and its deposit in court, as a condition precedent to requiring payment. to be made by the vendee. Walsh v. Coghlan, 33 Idaho 115, 190 Pac. 252; Troast v. Anjou, 172 N. Y. S. 383; Ames v. Milam, 53 Okla. 739, 157 Pac. 941; Stevenson v. Polk, 71 Iowa 278, 32 N. W. 340; Davis v. Smith, 88 Ala. 596, 7 So. 159; 39 Cyc. page 1850.
The demurrers were properly over-ruled and the decrees appealed from are therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coral Gables Sec. Corp. v. Miami Corp., 123 Fla. 172 (Fla. 1936)…ht. Vera Land Co. v. Metcalf, 100 Wash. 306, 170 Pac. Rep. 1012; Boyd v. Hunter, 104 Fla. 561, 140 Sou. Rep. 666; Dubos & Co. v. Jones, 34 Fla. 539, 16 Sou. Rep. 392; Duval v. Walton, 107 Fla. 60, 144 Sou. Rep. 318; Smalley v. Sovereign Finance Co., 102 Fla. 32, 135 Sou. Rep. 558. íhe order appealed from is affirmed and the cause remanded with leave to defendants' to answer the bill within such time as the Chancellor shall, by his order to that effect, decide. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. '…
-
Henderson v. Morton, 109 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1933)…rom a proceeding in equity to enforce a vendor’s lien for such un [*305] paid purchase price against property in possession of the vendee under such contract. See Schmidt v. Kibben, 100 Fla. 1684, 132 Sou. Rep. 194; Smalley v. Sovereign Finance Co., 102 Fla. 32, 135 Sou. Rep. 558; Grentner v. Hays, 98 Fla. 547, 124 Sou. Rep. 916; Miami Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Bell, 101 Fla. 1291, 133. Sou. Rep. 547. In an action at law between vendor and vendee, vendor who has not performed his own dependent covenants, or…
-
Wordinger v. Wirt, 112 Fla. 822 (Fla. 1933)…e agreed to be paid, but remaining unpaid under such contract for the sale and conveyance of lands, is authorized in this State, and the right of the vendor to sue for same is supported by a number of our decisions. Smalley v. Sovereign Finance Co., 102 Fla. 32, 135 Sou. Rep. 558; Schmidt v. Kibben, 100 Fla. 1684; 132 Sou. Rep. 194; Edmons v. Gracy, 61 Fla. 593, 54 Sou. Rep. 899; Grentner v. Hays, 98 Fla. 547, 124 Sou. Rep. 816; Aycock Bros. Lumber Co. v. First Natl. Bank, 54 Fla. 604, 45 Sou. Rep. 501; Mi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1897)
- Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103 (Fla. 1929)
- Sanford v. Cloud, 17 Fla. 532 (Fla. 1880)
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 54 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1907)
- Gertrude S. Booth v. Bobbitt, 94 Fla. 704 (Fla. 1927)