JOHN H. ELDER AND MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ESTATE OF R. S. HALL, INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Elder and Mortgage Securities Corporation appealed from a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure case, but the Florida Supreme Court found the appeal of the final decree was untimely filed and therefore could not review it. The Court affirmed the deficiency decree on the merits, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
An appeal filed more than six months after the entry of a final decree does not bring that decree before the court for review, and therefore interlocutory orders merged into the final decree cannot be assigned as error. However, the deficiency decree itself was properly entered as the chancellor was not guilty of any abuse of discretion.
“There being no effective appeal from the final decree, there was no right to assign errors on interlocutory orders made prior to the final decree and which had become merged into the final decree.”
Establishes the core procedural bar: untimely appeal of final decree prevents review of prior interlocutory orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a mortgage foreclosure case in which a final decree was entered on July 25, 1927. A deficiency decree was subsequently entered on January 16,…
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 Deficiency Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case the notice of entry of appeal was filed and forthwith recorded on the 23rd day of February, 1928, from “that certain final decree of the court made and entered in this cause on the 25th day of July, A. D. 1927, in Court Order Book 48, page 182, and from that certain order of the court made and entered in this cause on the 16th day of January, A. D. 1928, entering a deficiency decree against the defendants.”
It will be observed that the entry of appeal was more than six months after the' date of the entry of the final decree and, therefore, the pretended appeal did not bring the final decree to this Court for review. There being no effective appeal from the final decree, there was no right to assign errors on interlocutory orders made prior .to the final decree and which had become merged into the final decree. See Hodges v. Moore, 46 Fla. 598, 35 So. R. 13; Reid v. Comer, 86 Fla. 390, 98 So. R. 329.
Where a final decree has been rendered in a cause as in this case (a mortgage foreclosure) and no appeal was taken therefrom within six months from the date of the entry of such final decree an appeal from orders rendered subsequently to the final decree does not bring that decree before the Court for review. Judson Lumber Co. v. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100, 66 So. R. 727; Ocean Frontage Co. v. McFadden, opinion filed July 18, 1929, and reported 123 So. R. 666."
The only assignment of error which is left for the con sideration of this Court is that based upon the action of the chancellor in rendering a deficiency decree. In Exchange National Bank of Tampa v. Clark-Ray-Johnson Co., 95 Fla. 730, 116 So. R. 648, this Court say:
‘ ‘ The rendering of a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure is within the discretion of the chancellor when no abuse of discretion is shown. ’ ’
In this case it appears that the chancellor was guilty of no abuse of discretion in entering the deficiency decree.
The decree appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childs v. Boots, 112 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1933)…and no appeal therefrom was taken from the date of the entry of such final decree, an appeal from orders rendered subsequently to the final decree does not bring up the final decree before this Court for review. Elder v. Estate of R. S. Hall, Inc., 98 Fla. 954, 124 Sou. Rep. 466; Judson Lumber Co. v. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100, 66 Sou. Rep. 727. For the reasons just stated, the appeal from the final decree of August 8, 1929, is ineffective because not taken within six months from that decree. The appeal whic…
-
Delray Beach Whitehouse Apts., Inc. v. Hoffmann, 257 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1972)…So. 2d 769 (4th DCA Fla.1970). Conflict is shown with the prior decisions of this Court in Chabot v. Winter Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756 (1894) ; Daubmyre v. Hunter, 86 Fla. 326, 98 So. 69 (1923); Orlando Realty Board Building Corp. v. Hilpert, 98 Fla. 954, 113 So. 100 (1927); and Greenfield v. Bland, 99 So. 2d 727 (2nd DCA Fla.1958), vesting jurisdiction here. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4, F.S.A. The trial judge, with an experience on the Florida trial bench spanning a period of almost 30 years, drew a fo…1 / 2
-
McCaskill v. Graham, 125 Fla. 418 (Fla. 1936)…nal decree does not bring for review the final decree or any decrees entered prior thereto. Ocean Frontage Co. v. McFadden, 98 Fla. 197, 123 So. 666; Dees v. Cook, 58 Fla. 420, 51 Sou. 138; Eberle v. Wilson, 97 Fla. 384, 120 Sou. 851; Elder v. Hall, 98 Fla. 954, 124 Sou. 466. The only order or decree shown by the record which was entered within six months of the date of the filing of the notice of appeal was the order confirming the sale which included the denial of deficiency decree, and an order denying…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrison Reed and Catherine Harriet Reed v. Mendel Cromer, 86 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1923)
- Hodges v. Moore, 46 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1903)
- Judson Lumber Corp. v. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1914)
- Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Clark-Ray-Johnson Co., 95 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1928)