GLORIA TARTE WHITE AND WALLACE HAYES, APPELLANTS,
v.
NEIL B. KAPLAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action On A Note cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Notwithstanding the appellants’ not un-cogent contention that the law should be otherwise, based on the historical analysis in Watson, Deficiency Suits After Foreclosure: A Matter of Timing, 56 Fla.B.J. 47, 48-50 (1982), it is firmly established that the chancellor’s previous denial of a deficiency judgment specifically sought after foreclosure, which was affirmed in White v. Kaplan, 418 So. 2d 1302 (Pla. 3d DCA 1982) (per curiam), precludes the maintenance of the present action “at law” on the note to recover for the same debt. Crawford v. Woodward, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311 (1939); Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300, 153 So. 843 (1934); Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42, 146 So. 641 (1933); see Scheneman v. Barnett, 53 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1951), and cases cited. The summary-judgment rendered below in the defendant’s favor is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. Gibson, 638 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…w. As a result, Carson has lost his right to a jury trial by litigating these issues in the earher equitable proceeding. There are occasions, however, where a party loses the right to proceed at law by litigating an issue in equity. White v. Kaplan, 449 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (claim for deficiency in equity bars subsequent claim at law). Although we have located no Florida case concerning the estoppel effect of htigation on a charging hen, we note that a New York court has given estoppel effect to a ju…
Authorities Cited
- Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1934)
- Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1933)
- Scheneman v. Barnett, 53 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1951)
- Jetta Crawford v. Dewing Woodward, 140 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1939)