CAPITAL FINANCE CORP.
v.
RUTH M. GILES, ET AL.
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 reversed an order dismissing a bill of complaint, holding that an assignee of a tax sale certificate could foreclose for the face value, including subsequent taxes, even if purchased for less than face value. The court found the bill of complaint sufficient under the 1931 Chancery Practice Act.
Yes, the assignee of a tax sale certificate can foreclose for the face value thereof, together with subsequent and omitted taxes paid, even if the certificate was purchased for less than its face value. The bill of complaint was also found to comply with the 1931 Chancery Practice Act.
“The bill of complaint complies with the 1931 Chancery Practice Act in regard to the allegations of ultimate facts and, therefore, contains' sufficient allegations to constitute a basis for the relief prayed.”
Establishes the sufficiency of the complaint under the relevant procedural rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCapital Finance Corp. (complainant) filed a bill of complaint as the assignee of a tax sale certificate. The defendants moved to dismiss, challenging …
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.
In this' case the appeal is from an order dismissing a bill of complaint filed by one who is alleged to be the assignee, owner and' holder of a tax sale certificate issued to the State of Florida for unpaid taxes. The bill of complaint complies with the 1931 Chancery Practice Act in regard to the allegations of ultimate facts and, therefore, contains' sufficient allegations to constitute a basis for the relief prayed.
Amongst other things, the motions to dismiss raised the question of the right of the complainant to foreclose a tax sale certificate for. the face value thereof together with subsequent and omitted taxes paid by the complainant when *528the certificate was' bought and assigned to the complainant for less than the face value thereof.
The contention of the appellee has been settled adversely by this Court in the case of Patterson v. Crenshaw, opinion filed May 24, 1933. On authority of that case and because it appears that insofar as' the sufficiency of the allegations is concerned the 1931 Chancery Practice Act has been complied with, the orders appealed from should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Wi-ittfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lang v. Quaker Realty Corp., 131 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1938)…to the question as presented by [*185] the first sub-paragraph is to be found in Patterson v. Crenshaw, 110 Fla. 310, 148 Sou. 543, and the cases there cited, and also in the later case of Capital Finance Corporation v. Giles, et al., 110 Fla. 527, 149 Sou. 585. It was well settled that the holder of the tax certificate bought from and assigned by the proper official becomes vested with the ownership of and the right to foreclose the lien evidenced by the certificate for the face amount of the certificate…
-
Am. Ladder & Scaffold Co., Inc. v. Miami Ventilated Awning MFG. Co., Inc., 161 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ed or apparent, was such as to make the indemnity contract effective and binding on defendant was a genuine, material issue for jury determination on proper instructions. See T. G. Bush Grocery Co. v. Conely, supra; Smith v. Texas Co., 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585; Florida National Bank at Orlando v. Bolena, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 436. For the reasons stated the summary judgment appealed from is reversed. Reversed. . The record discloses the several defendants were merged into Miami Ventilated Awning Man…
-
McCABE v. Howard, 281 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…may be shown by any substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial and the fact of an agency is a jury question. Financial Fire & Cas. Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Co-op. Assoc., 212 So. 2d 69, (3d D.C.A.1968); Smith v. Texas Co., 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585 (1933). The mere existence of a fiduciary relationship between a corporation and its president, although very important, would not in and of itself be sufficient to pose a question of the fact of an agency for a jury. However, this, in addition to…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence