## Facts

- The O’Steens financed a home purchase with funds borrowed from Mid-State Investment Corporation.
- The parties structured the transaction so Mid-State held legal title while the O’Steens held an unrecorded contract for deed requiring monthly payments plus interest until the debt was paid.
- The contract included a forfeiture-and-reentry clause purporting to allow Mid-State, upon default, to terminate the contract, retain prior payments as liquidated damages, and reenter “without being liable to any action.”
- The O’Steens frequently paid late, and Mid-State repeatedly accepted late payments.
- In February 1959, the O’Steens moved for employment, locked the house, and left furniture and other personal property inside.
- By April 24, 1959, the O’Steens were two months in arrears; Mid-State elected to repossess and sent an agent who entered through a window and took possession of the house and the O’Steens’ personal property.
- Some personal property was delivered to third parties; much of it was not returned and was lost, while a small amount remained in the house.
- Mid-State promptly sold the house to a third party.
- Four days after the entry, Mid-State accepted another monthly payment from the O’Steens after they learned of the repossession.
- The O’Steens sued for trespass to real property and conversion of personal property; the trial court struck Mid-State’s affirmative defense based on the reentry clause, directed a verdict for the O’Steens on liability, and submitted damages to the jury, which awarded \$2,750.

## Issues

1. Whether the contract-for-deed arrangement, though framed as title retention with forfeiture and reentry, was in substance a mortgage under Florida law.
2. If the arrangement was a mortgage, whether Mid-State could lawfully retake possession by self-help entry and dispossession rather than using foreclosure.
3. Whether the trial court applied the proper measure of damages for the trespass and conversion claims.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the O’Steens.
- The court held the contract-for-deed arrangement functioned as security for a debt and therefore was, in substance, a mortgage, leaving Mid-State with only a lien interest.
- As a mortgagee, Mid-State had no right to repossess the home by self-help reentry; its remedy was judicial foreclosure.
- The self-help entry into the locked home and interference with the O’Steens’ personal property supported liability for trespass and conversion, making the directed verdict on liability proper.
- The court upheld the damages instruction using the value of the plaintiffs’ property interest at the time of the trespass and affirmed the \$2,750 verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance or title-retention device intended to secure repayment of money is treated as a mortgage under Florida law, regardless of its label.
- A mortgagee generally may not obtain possession of mortgaged real property by extra-judicial reentry based solely on contract language; foreclosure is the proper remedy.
- Unauthorized entry onto property and dispossession by a lienholder supports tort liability for trespass to realty, and wrongful dominion over personal property supports liability for conversion.
- For trespass in this context, damages may be measured by the value of the plaintiff’s property interest at the time of the trespass, even where legal title is held by the creditor as security.

## Conclusion

The court treated the installment land contract as a mortgage, rejected self-help repossession based on a forfeiture-and-reentry clause, and affirmed liability for trespass and conversion and the jury’s damages award.


Mid-State Inv. Corp. v. O’Steen, 133 So. 2d 455 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1961)