JOSEPH FRANCESCHINI
v.
MADELINE C. SIGMOND, ET AL.

Fla. | 1948-07-20
CHAPMAN, ADAMS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
160 Fla. 706 Florida Supreme Court (1948)
Also reported at: 36 So. 2d 371

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure case, finding that the amount due on the mortgages and the attorney's fee awarded were both insufficient. The court recalculated the amount due and increased the attorney's fee.


Holding

No, the amount due on the mortgages was deficient, and the attorney's fee was less than should have been allotted. The court recalculated the amount due and increased the attorney's fee.


Key Quotes

“A careful audit here of the debits charged and the credits allowed has established that the exact amount due at the time of entry of the final decree, 12 February 1948, was $2,116.85 instead of $908.92, as fixed by the chancellor.”

Establishes the court's finding regarding the deficiency in the amount due on the mortgages.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant challenged a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure case, arguing that the amount found due on the mortgages was too low and the attorne…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal the appellant challenges the propriety of the final decree on two grounds, namely that the amount found to be due on the two mortgages foreclosed was deficient and that the fee for plaintiff’s counsel was less than should have been allotted. We think that both contentions are sound.

*707A careful audit here of the debits charged and the credits allowed has established that the exact amount due at the time of entry of the final decree, 12 February 1948, was $2,116.85 instead of $908.92, as fixed by the chancellor.

The court allowed counsel $100 for filing the bill and ten per cent of the amount found to be due, or, in round numbers $190. Inasmuch as two suits were instituted, we think his fee should have been $200 and ten per cent of the recovery, despite the fact that the suits were eventually consolidated.

The decree is therefore reversed with directions that it be amended by increasing the amount due mortgagee to $2,116.85 and by enlarging the fee of $200 plus ten per cent of the amount we have determined to be due, or $411.68.

CHAPMAN, ADAMS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw