GRACE EVELYN HALL
v.
DELFINA P. F. ADAMS, ET VIR
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.
Grace Hall purchased a house from Delfina Adams via a purchase money mortgage secured by fifty monthly promissory notes. After Grace defaulted on the fourth note and vacated the premises, Delfina took possession. Grace claimed Delfina unlawfully entered the property and sought double rental value under Florida law; the trial court found the detention was not willful and awarded Grace only actual rental value as a credit against the mortgage debt.
The trial court's finding that the detention was not 'willful and knowingly wrongful' is affirmed. Grace is entitled to receive only the actual rental value of the property during the period Delfina was in possession as a credit against the mortgage, not double the rental value.
“Section 82.14, Florida Statutes 1941, has to do with the allowance of monthly rental in unlawful detention cases. It permits the allowance of double the rental value when deprived of possession only when the jury is satisfied from the evidence that the detention is "willful and knowingly wrongful."”
Establishes the statutory standard for doubling rental value—the detention must be proven willful and knowingly wrongful.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrace Hall purchased a house and lot from Delfina Adams, securing the purchase with fifty monthly promissory notes backed by a mortgage. The first thr…
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 Unlawful Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree foreclosing a purchase money mortgage. The parties are widely at variance as to what questions this Court should answer, so we are relegated to the record to cull them from that. It appears that Grace Hall, appellant, purchased a house and lot from Delfina Adams, appellee, and gave in exchange for it fifty promissory notes secured by the mortgage foreclosed. The notes were payable monthly. Notes One, Two, and Three were paid as they matured, but Grace left the premises and defaulted on payment of Note Four. Delfina moved in and took possession and later instituted suit to foreclose.
Delfina contends that Grace voluntarily surrendered the premises to her while Grace contends that Delfina wangled *2in the house during her (Grace’s) absence and took possession without her knowledge or consent. There is no dispute about the amount due on the face of the notes but Grace contends that because of Delfina’s unlawful entry and detainer, she should pay twice the rental value of the premises as required by Section 82.14, Florida Statutes 1941. It is shown that an unlawful detainer suit was brought in the proper forum and was intercepted by plea in abatement because the same relief could be secured in equity by answer and counter claim which was interposed.
So by the issues made and theory under which the case was tried, the question presented is how much rental should Delfina pay Grace during the time she held the premises in view of the statute referred to.
Section 82.14, Florida Statutes 1941, has to do with the allowance of monthly rental in unlawful detention cases. It permits the allowance of double the rental value when deprived of possession only when the jury is satisfied from the evidence that the detention is “willful and knowingly wrongful.” The issues in this case were tried by the Court and the evidence on this point was conflicting, so the court’s finding should be given the same weight as that of a jury.
Delfina testified postively that Grace authorized her to take charge of the premises. The master and the Court both found that the detention was not “willful and knowingly wrongful.” The Court decreed that Grace should be .given the actual rental value of the property during the period Delfina was in possession as credit on the mortgage. Other evidence tends to support this finding and no reason is shown to disturb it.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1955)…sition that this court is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court. See Hall v. Adams, 155 Fla. 1, 19 So. 2d 412. The appellant states the following question in his brief: “Where there is absent any provision for stipulated damages or for forfeiture of deposit in a contract for the sale and purchase of property, and where the seller has failed…