J. E. KENNEDY, AND HER HUSBAND, -KENNEDY, LEONA F. GLASS; THE CHICAGO AND TAMPA IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION; G. E. THAYER AND MILTON A. STAKE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY S. HANCOCK, 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 addressed whether a tax certificate foreclosure decree properly included '$10.00' for 'abstract information' as recoverable costs. The court held that personal expenses for obtaining an abstract of title are not recoverable as 'costs' under the tax certificate foreclosure statute, even though such proceedings follow general mortgage foreclosure rules.
The word 'costs' as used in the tax certificate foreclosure statute does not authorize recovery of personal expenses such as abstract information charges. Even in mortgage foreclosure cases (which tax certificate proceedings are to follow in general), such expenditures are not recoverable as 'costs' but only as 'expenses,' and then only when the underlying instrument provides for payment of 'expenses' in addition to 'costs.'
“The word "costs" as used in the statute, does not authorize the recovery of those items of personal expense incurred by the tax certificate holder, such as costs of an abstract of the title”
Establishes the core holding that personal expenses for abstracts are not recoverable as 'costs' under the statute
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a tax certificate foreclosure proceeding, the trial court entered a final decree that included a $10.00 item for 'abstract information,' which repr…
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.
Section 23 of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, provides that the final decree shall determine the amount due “on” the tax certificate, and omitted subsequent taxes, and subsequent tax sale certificates. It also authorizes and requires the Court to include in the final decree in a tax certificate foreclosure proceeding a reasonable attorney’s fee and “costs.”
In this case the Court included in the final decree an item: “abstract information, $10.00,” intending thereby to permit complainant to recover as “costs,” the personal expense complainant had been put to, in ascertaining the state of the public records as to the title of the property, and the parties necessary to be joined in the suit in order to convey a perfect title at the foreclosure sale, against all having inferior claims.
The word “costs” as used in the statute, does not authorize the recovery of those items of personal expense incurred *602by the tax certificate holder, such as costs of an abstract of the title, even though the statute provides that the proceeding shall conform in general to those provided for the foreclosure of mortgages. Even in mortgage foreclosure cases, expenditures for an abstract of the title to the property, are not recoverable as “costs,” but rather as “expenses,” and then only when the mortgage provides for the payment by the mortgagor of all “expenses” as well as “costs” of foreclosure.
The decree appealed from should be modified by eliminating; as of the date of the decree, the $10.00 charge for abstract information, and it is so ordered. In all other respects the decree is correct and should be affirmed. The affirmance of the final decree appeared from makes it unnecessary to pass on appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, the case now having been reached and decided in due course.
Modified and affirmed.
Davis, C. J. and, Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Borowsky, 120 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…g of agreement, express or implied, to that effect. We, therefore, conclude that this personal expense, under the circumstances of this case, is not recoverable. See Weathersbee v. Dekle, 102 Fla. 1057, 136 So. 708; Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 So. 667; Security Land & Investment Company v. Ranger Realty Company, 115 Fla. 640, 156 So. 23. That portion of the judgment awarding costs is reversed, and the case remanded for the entry of an appropriate judgment for costs in accordance with the princip…
-
Sw. Enters., Inc. v. Frasse, 113 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1934)…pended by complainant to procure an abstract of title, and of $3.50 for money expended by complainant in securing photostatic copies of exhibits used in the case should not have been allowed in the final decree (See Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 Sou. Rep. 667), which should be reversed and an amended decree entered for a resale of the property in default of redemption after the proper amounts as decreed, unless complainant below shall within fifteen days after filing of the mandate permit a redemption fr…
-
The Nemours Found. v. Gauldin, 601 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…case cover both costs and expenses, we need not engage in a discussion of the differences, if any, in the meanings of the [*577] two words. See American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, 67 So. 862 (1915); Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 So. 667 (1933); City of Miami v. Murphy, 137 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1962); Florida Gas Co. v. Spectra-Physics, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); C.B.T. Realty Corp. v. St. Andrews Cove I Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 508 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). . See F…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence