CAMEO HOTEL AND APARTMENTS, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND GERARDO SANCHEZ, GENERAL PARTNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
RHODA MORRIS AND AUDREY LEWIS, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unclean Hands Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In considering objections to a-foreclosure sale the “ ‘chancellor has a large discretion which will only be interfered with by the appellate court in a clear case of injustice.’ ” Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 131 Fla. 752, 756, 180 So. 382, 384 (1938); accord Maule Indus. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307, 311 (Fla.1956). Although appellants complain of the procedures followed at the foreclosure sale, such confusion as may have existed was the proximate result of a chain of events set in motion by appellants themselves. They will not now be heard to complain. See Malkus v. Gaines, 476 So. 2d 220, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“the equity court should not lend its extraordinary powers to benefit one ... who has ‘unclean hands’ ”). On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellants’ objections to the foreclosure sale.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
MR. C's TV Rental & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…nprofessional attendant or custodial care to not more than 12 hours per day, became effective October 1,1989, after the entry of the order (July 3, 1989) in this case. Ch. 89-289, §§ 10 and 45, Laws of Fla. In Williams v. Amax Chemical Corporation, 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court applied the earlier 1988 amendment of Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes, to benefits awarded prior to, but paid after, the effective date of the amendment, holding: After October 1, 1988, payment for the wife’s…
-
Caron v. Systematic AIR Servs. & State Farm Ins., 576 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…subject to reduction merely because the family member is involved in other household activities while simultaneously monitoring the activities of a claimant. Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amador v. Parts Depot, Inc., 508 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1986). Here, the unrefut-ed expert medical testi…
-
Gustav Thorarinsson v. Robert F. Wilson, Inc., 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Stat. (1988), should not be retroactively applied. This court has previously held that the 1988 amendment of § 440.13(2)(e)2, applied to benefits awarded prior to, but paid after, the effective date of the amendment. Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Further, this court in Mr. C’s TV Rental and Liberty Mut. Ins. v. David Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), held that neither the 1988 nor the 1989 amendment affect a claimant’s substantive rights. Therefore, the 1989 am…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956)
- Crichlow v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 131 Fla. 752 (Fla. 1938)
- Shayne v. Pike, 131 Fla. 862 (Fla. 1938)
- Malkus v. Gaines, 476 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)