JAMES R. DAVIS AND LESLIE V. DAVIS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN H. SIMON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order confirming a foreclosure sale and awarding a deficiency decree. The court held that the appeal, which only challenged the confirmation and deficiency decree, did not allow for a review of the original final foreclosure decree.
No, an appeal limited to the order confirming the sale and awarding a deficiency decree does not authorize a review of the original final foreclosure decree.
“An appeal was taken only from the order confirming the sale and awarding a deficiency decree.”
This quote establishes the limited scope of the appeal before the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a foreclosure proceeding, a final decree was rendered, and the property was sold for a nominal amount. The sale was confirmed, and a deficie…
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 Confirmation Of Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
A final decree was rendered in a foreclosure proceeding adjudicating the amount of the indebtedness and ordering a sale of the property. The property sold for a nominal amount; the sale was confirmed and a deficiency decree rendered. An appeal was taken only from the order confirming the sale and awarding a deficiency decree. This appeal does not authorize a review of the final decree. It appears that the defendant’s title to the mortgage property was oí little, if any market value, therefore the order confirming its sale for ten dollars is not shown to be unjust or erroneous. The amount of the deficiency decree resulted mathematically from the indebtedness adjudged in the final decree which is not appealed from. This being so-the court cannot consider the sole contention that the amount of the indebtedness decree is not in accordance with the evidence.
The decree is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, EEockek and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.