S/D ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, 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.
S/D Enterprises appealed a trial court's entry of a deficiency judgment against it following foreclosure of a mortgage by Chase Manhattan Bank. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in entering the deficiency decree despite the appellant's argument that the lender's wrongful conduct contributed to its inability to pay.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion by entering the deficiency decree. Deficiency judgments are the rule rather than the exception in foreclosure actions, and they should only be withheld when equitable considerations warrant such denial in the trial court's sound discretion.
[1] The granting of a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure action is a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.
[2] Generally, the granting of a deficiency judgment is the rule rather than the exception in mortgage foreclosure actions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The granting of a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure action is a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the legal standard that deficiency decrees are discretionary with the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS/D Enterprises and Chase Manhattan Bank had a mortgage loan agreement. Chase Manhattan Bank allegedly failed to fund certain sums under the agreement…
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 Equitable Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order of the trial court granting a deficiency judgment against it in an action for damages for appellee’s defendant below, failure to fund certain sums under a mortgage loan agreement between the parties and on appellee’s counterclaim for foreclosure of its mortgages.1 We affirm.
The primary question presented to us by the appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s entry of the deficiency judgment. Appellant argues that such judgment should not have been entered because the mortgage lender’s (appellee) wrongful conduct substantially and directly contributed to the mortgagor’s (appellant) inability to pay the mortgage loan and, therefore, no deficiency judgment should have been entered after foreclosure.
The granting of a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure action is a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. See, e. g., Maudo, Inc. v. Stein, 201 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Nathanson v. Weston, 163 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); and Colmes v. Hoco, Inc., of Dade County, 152 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Generally, the granting of a deficiency judgment is the rule rather than the exception, unless there are facts and circumstances creating equitable considerations upon which a court should deny the deficiency decree in the exercise of its discretion. See Maudo, cited above; and Colmes, cited above. Thus, an exercise of sound judicial discretion consonant with equity in the light of the facts should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of a clear abuse of sound judicial discretion. See, e. g., Matlock v. Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); and Builders Finance Company, Inc. v. Ridgewood Home Sites, 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
After a careful review of the record in this case, in light of the principles set forth above and the other applicable principles governing appeals, we are of the opinion that the trial court properly exercised its discretion by entering the deficiency decree. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. For the prior history and additional facts in this case see Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enterprises, Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); and S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, Case No. 76-1680 (Fla. 3d DCA, oral argument heard May 1, 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
S/D Enters., Inc. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 375 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…958) and Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accordingly, the order appealed is hereby affirmed. . Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enterprises, Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). . S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
-
Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ed absent a clear abuse of discretion where there are facts and circumstances that create equitable considerations supporting the trial court’s denial. Baxter v. Kobs, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhatten Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hamilton Investment Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). If the value of the foreclosed property exceeds the debt, the trial court is authorized to deny a deficiency. Though the evidence before…
-
Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Valois, 570 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…FERGUSON, Judge (dissenting). The majority opinion conflicts with this court’s opinions in S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), Fara Mfg. Co. v. First Fed. S & L Ass’n, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and Merrill v. Nuzum, 471 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the first district’s recent opinion in Thunderbird Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 1296 (…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colmes v. Hoco, 152 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Builders Fin. Co., Inc. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enters., Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Maudo, Inc. v. Isidor Stein and Rose Stein, 201 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Matlack v. Artemus W. Owen and Josephine Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Nathanson v. Eliot R. Weston and Francoise D. Weston, 163 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)