CHARLES BROWN
v.
MYRTLE MYERS FRITCH, ET VIR.
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 an order granting a writ of assistance in a mortgage foreclosure case. The court held that the defendant had a full opportunity to be heard and that the final decree was conclusive of the purchaser's right to possession.
Yes, the order granting the writ of assistance was proper because the defendant was accorded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on all points in controversy, and the court adjudicated the issues after full hearing.
“The record shows that the defendant (appellant here) was' accorded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on every point in controversy between him and the complainant-mortgagee, and that the court adjudicated the issues only after full hearing and consideration of all the facts.”
This quote establishes the basis for the court's decision that the defendant had due process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed an order granting a writ of assistance to the complainant-purchaser of mortgaged property at a foreclosure sale. The order dire…
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 Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal taken by the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure case from an order entered after final decree therein granting to the complainant-purchaser of the mortgaged property at the foreclosure sale, a writ of assistance to put the petitioner for the writ of assistance in possession of the lands described in the foreclosure decree and master’s deed. After a hearing upon the application for the writ, the chancellor entered an order by which he directed that the defendant deliver possession to the purchaser of the premises described in the foreclosure decree, and that a writ of assistance be issued to place such purchaser in possession.
.The record shows that the defendant (appellant here) was' accorded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on every point in controversy between him and the complainant-mortgagee, and that the court adjudicated the issues only after full hearing and consideration of all the facts. The final decree was, as against the defendant, Brown, a party to the cause, conclusive of the purchaser’s right to be placed in possession of the mortgaged property as described in the pleadings and final decree. So the order appealed from, which was to deliver possession and for a writ of assistance was proper. See Hair v. Commercial Bank of Live Oak, 112 Fla. 499, 152 Sou. Rep. 180 (opinion filed October 28, 1933, at the present term).
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Radtke v. Anne L. Loud, 98 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…eet, must be judged by a standard more liberal than in the case of an ordinary pedestrian who has no care other than his own safety, in determining whether he has been guilty of negligence when struck by an automobile. Prior v. Pounds, 113 Fla. 308, 151 So. 890; Boyle v. Bunting Hardware Co., Mo.App., 238 S.W. 155; Fitzsimons v. Isman, 166 App.Div. 262, 151 N.Y.S. 552; Beyrent v. Kaplan, 315 Pa. 353, 172 A. 651, 92 A.L.R. 1515; Tanner v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 363 Pa. 136, 69 A. 2d 366; Blashfield…
-
A. M. Kidder & Co. v. Turner, 106 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1958)…60 So. 2d 28: “ * * * we must, before we disturb the judgment, determine that the charge assailed, considered by itself and also in connection with the whole charge, was erroneous and harmful as well.” See also Prior v. Pounds, 1934, 113 Fla. 308, 151 So. 890, 892; Dowling v. Loftin, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 283, 285. The two charges given but objected to, when considered in the context of the entire charge, are not harmful or erroneous and do not appear to have misled the jury. Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., an…
-
Jeanett Brown v. Killinger, 146 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…le to the material issues and should not have been given. See Central Truck Lines, Inc., v. Rogers (Fla. App.1962), 140 So. 2d 130; Bessett v. Hackett (Fla.), 66 So. 2d 694; Green v. Atlantic Co. (Fla.), 61 So. 2d 183; Prior v. Pounds, 113 Fla. 308, 151 So. 890; Baldwin v. State, 46 Fla. 115, 35 So. 220. Aside from the error in instructing the jury with the law applicable to the Guest Statute, the court erred in further instructing the jury that the plaintiff had failed to establish the degree of negligen…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hair v. Commercial Bank of Live Oak, 112 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1933)