Geacock Hotel Vs Shipman Case Study
Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Shipman (appeal)
This appeal was presented to the Florida court by Cordelia Shipman and her husband A. K. Shipman from Miami against the Peacock hotel represented by Coral Peacock and her daughter Cecil A. Peacock from Miami as well. The appeal was from a final decree of foreclosure of the purchase-money mortgage. The Shipmans made a contract with Ms. Peacock, an inexperienced in business widow, and her daughter, a minor, for the sale of the Hotel with the premises of the women continuing the payment for the hotel mortgage after the sale was completed.
The couple alleged error in the refusal of the court to make effective their claim that the mortgage was obtained by a fraudulent sale, and that they should be allowed …show more content…
JANIEWSKI
This appeal is based on a previous trial for the stop of payments due to in an abrupt change in rent prices, and was brought to the Florida district court of appeals by Alan and Nancy Garrett, the new owners of a mobile home park. They appeal a final judgment in favor of forty-six tenants from the mobile home park who refused to perform payment. The couple asked for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages coming from the agreements for the mobile home lots.
In the first trial, the court found the Garretts liable to the tenants for substantive and procedural unconscionability. Tenants maintained that the new rental prices placed by the owners were above the fair market value of the lots. Moreover, most of the unit homes in the property were virtually unmovable and after years of depreciation most of them were not accepted by other mobile home parks. Therefore, even if the tenants wanted to leave, that was not reasonably doable due to the age of the units which made almost impossible the option for the tenants to find substitutes unless they purchase new mobile homes. The court declared procedural unconscionability due to the unfair bargaining position of the Garrets with respect to the tenants, and substantive unconscionability because there was proof that the rent charged was above the fair market rental
This appeal was presented to the Florida court by Cordelia Shipman and her husband A. K. Shipman from Miami against the Peacock hotel represented by Coral Peacock and her daughter Cecil A. Peacock from Miami as well. The appeal was from a final decree of foreclosure of the purchase-money mortgage. The Shipmans made a contract with Ms. Peacock, an inexperienced in business widow, and her daughter, a minor, for the sale of the Hotel with the premises of the women continuing the payment for the hotel mortgage after the sale was completed.
The couple alleged error in the refusal of the court to make effective their claim that the mortgage was obtained by a fraudulent sale, and that they should be allowed …show more content…
JANIEWSKI
This appeal is based on a previous trial for the stop of payments due to in an abrupt change in rent prices, and was brought to the Florida district court of appeals by Alan and Nancy Garrett, the new owners of a mobile home park. They appeal a final judgment in favor of forty-six tenants from the mobile home park who refused to perform payment. The couple asked for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages coming from the agreements for the mobile home lots.
In the first trial, the court found the Garretts liable to the tenants for substantive and procedural unconscionability. Tenants maintained that the new rental prices placed by the owners were above the fair market value of the lots. Moreover, most of the unit homes in the property were virtually unmovable and after years of depreciation most of them were not accepted by other mobile home parks. Therefore, even if the tenants wanted to leave, that was not reasonably doable due to the age of the units which made almost impossible the option for the tenants to find substitutes unless they purchase new mobile homes. The court declared procedural unconscionability due to the unfair bargaining position of the Garrets with respect to the tenants, and substantive unconscionability because there was proof that the rent charged was above the fair market rental