Opinion
October 14, 1952. Rehearing Denied November 20, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Highlands County, Don Register, J.
James W. Moore, Sebring, for appellants.
McDonald McDonald and M.R. McDonald, Sebring, for appellees.
The record discloses that the Johnsons, appellees here, contacted one P.R. King, the then owner of the property involved in this suit for the purpose of negotiating the purchase of certain property. King told them he was willing to sell the property for $900 cash.
Having only $100 in cash the Johnsons, in their efforts to borrow the necessary money to complete the sale, were directed by friends to the appellant Burket, designated by those friends as "the loan man."
Johnson approached Burket and explained to him his desire and purpose of securing the loan. Mr. Burket took Johnson's $100 and assured Johnson he'd see what he could do about acquiring the property.
A day or two later Burket after this conversation purchased the property from King for the sum of $900, and a warranty deed was executed conveying the real estate to the wife of Burket. This deed was dated April 23, 1945.
In addition to the purchase price, Mr. Burket paid $35 for examining the title and $1.35 for recording deed, plus $1.80 for stamps on deed, according to his testimony.
On the same date that the deed was executed Maude M. Burket and A.H. Burket, appellants, entered into a written agreement for deed with Ike Johnson and Bertha Johnson, appellees. This agreement required the Johnsons to pay the sum of $1,325 for the property at the rate of $15 per week, with interest to be paid at the rate of 10% per annum after maturity. Credit was given to the Johnsons for the $100 already paid.
The Johnsons did not pay exactly on time each time an installment was due but after they had paid the full sum of $1,325 they requested the Burkets to give them a deed to the property. The Burkets refused, saying they, the Burkets, were entitled to an additional amount as interest. The Johnsons then consulted counsel and this cause of action was commenced.
The Johnsons in their case at bar prayed that the deed to Mrs. Burket be declared a mortgage, that the title to the property be conveyed to them by the Burkets, and that the transaction be declared usurious.
After hearing the evidence in the cause, the chancellor decreed that the Burkets convey to the Johnsons the property embraced in this suit, and granted the Johnsons a money judgment for $1,225, plus costs.
We have carefully considered the record in the case and the conclusion is inescapable that the Johnsons saw King about buying the property, arranged with Burket for a loan in the sum of $800 which, together with the $100 given by Johnson to Burket, made up the total purchase price of the property.
The Johnsons were willing that the Burkets take title to the property and to hold the title until they could pay the money, and that interest on the money was only to be paid after maturity.
The record is clear that the Burkets advanced only $800 and demanded the return of $1,225 for said sum.
The Court below held that by reason of those facts interest in the amount of $425 had been charged on the loan of $800 and that the defendant should forfeit the entire sum, both principal and interest, or $1,225. This holding was predicated on the provisions of Section 687.07, F.S.A.
The Court below made a finding of fact that the transaction was a loan as between the parties and cited the case of Hawley v. Kendall, 139 Fla. 850, 191 So. 10, as a basis for his ruling in this cause. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the Chancellor in his findings.
We hold that this suit is well within the frequently reiterated rule that the findings of the Chancellor on facts will not be disturbed by an appellate Court unless such facts are clearly shown to be erroneous. See Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 So. 204; Smith v. O'Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 So. 13; Peterson v. Hancock, 146 Fla. 410, 1 So.2d 255. Error has not been made to appear. Accordingly the decree appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
SEBRING, C.J., and ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.