EARL C. RUMSEY AND MRS. EARL C. RUMSEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. WEGESLBAUM, ET AL, APPELLEES
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 reviewed a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure suit, finding errors in the calculation of principal and interest due and the allowance of a solicitor's fee. The court modified the decree to correct these amounts and affirmed it in all other respects.
Yes, the decree contained errors. The principal and interest should have been calculated as $13,054.77, and the solicitor's fee required further testimony to determine the correct amount.
“The sum stated is $13,078.01. This sum should have been stated as $13,-054.77.”
Establishes the court's finding of error in the principal and interest calculation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants appealed a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure suit. The decree calculated the principal and interest due as $13,078.01 and allowed a so…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
Bueord, J.
This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The appeal is from the final decree.
An examination of the record discloses two errors in the decree.
The record having been seen and inspected and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said decree insofar as the amount of principal and interest found in the decree to be due is excessive. The sum stated is $13,078.01. This sum should have been stated as $13,-054.77. It appearing that the balance due July 6, 1926, after payments made on that date, was $11,819.15; that interest had accrued up to the date of the decree for one year; three months and twenty-two days in the sum of $1,235.62, making a total, as above stated, of $13,054.77. There is further error in the said decree insofar as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $800.00. See Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna and also Brooks v. Roberts decided at this term. It is ordered that the Chancellor may take testimony for the complainants as to the amount of Solicitor’s fees, within the terms of the mortgage, agreed by them to be paid to their Solicitors for their services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from, and by substituting $13,054.77 for principal and interest in lieu of $13,078.01, as it appears in the final decree. The decree is affirmed in other respects. The costs of this appeal shall be taxed against the appellees.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.