WM. A. DAVIS, JR., AS ANCILLARY EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF W. A. DAVIS, DECEASED, AND LURA S. DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELSIE GILE SCOTT, A WIDOW, 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 foreclosure decree and the subsequent sale confirmation, holding that the defendant's death after the final decree did not invalidate the proceedings absent a showing of injustice or legal prejudice.
No, the decree confirming the sale was not erroneous. The court held that the final decree of foreclosure had been entered before the defendant's death, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that either the final decree or the sale confirmation was unjust, irregular, illegal, or deprived them of any legal right.
“It is well settled that a suit of this kind abates on the date of the death of the main defendant but in this case final decree of foreclosure had been entered before the death of the main defendant and there is no attempt whatever on the part of the appellant to show that such final decree or the decree confirming the sale was unjust, irregular, illegal, or deprived him of any legal right.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the sale confirmation despite the defendant's death after the final decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appeal concerned an ordinary foreclosure decree and the decree confirming the sale of the foreclosed lands. The main defendant died after the fina…
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.
Terrell, C. J.
This appeal is from an ordinary foreclosure decree and from the decree confirming the sale of the lands foreclosed against.
It is contended here that the decree confirming the sale of the lands foreclosed against is erroneous because, (1) the main defendant died prior to the entry thereof though subsequent to the final decree, and no one had been substituted as a party defendant in his stead, (2) under Section 3734 Rev. Gen. Stats. of Fla., (Sec. 5605 Comp. Gen. Laws of Fla.) administrators are given six months to pay the debts of the deceased whom they represent, and (3) the master’s report was irregular and amounted to a nullity.
It is well settled that a suit of this kind abates on the date of the death of the main defendant but in this case final decree of foreclosure had been entered before the death of the main defendant and there is no attempt whatever on the part of the appellant to show that such final decree or the decree confirming the sale was unjust, irregular, illegal, or deprived him of any legal right. The assignment with reference to the master’s report does not appear to be supported by the record nor is it shown that Section 3734 R. G. S. of Fla. is violated.
The decree below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., not participating.