MRS. LOUISE SMITH
v.
S. F. FLOYD, 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 affirmed a lower court's decision to set aside a tax foreclosure sale confirmation and order a new sale. The court found that the initial sale and confirmation were invalid because the final decree had not been filed and recorded prior to these actions, as required by statute.
No, the sale and confirmation were not valid because the final decree had not been filed and recorded as required by Florida law. The subsequent order setting aside the confirmation and ordering a new sale was proper.
“Decrees in equity may be signed by the judge when pronounced, and shall be recorded in the chancery order book of the court without any other enrollment. And no process shall be issued or other proceedings had on any final decree [*536] or order until the same shall have been signed and recorded as aforesaid.”
This quote states the statutory requirement for decrees to be signed and recorded before further proceedings can occur.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA tax foreclosure sale was decreed on December 8, 1932, but the decree was not filed for record until January 5, 1933. The sale occurred on January 2,…
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 Tax Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit to foreclose the lien of a tax sale certificate for unpaid State and county taxes for 1929, the court on December 8, 1932, decreed a foreclosure and sale. The decree was not filed for record till January 5, 1933. The sale was made January 2, 1933, and the sale confirmed by the court January 3, 1933. On January 10, 1933, the court set aside the order confirming the sale and ordered another sale of the property to be made on February 6, 1933. Complainant appealed from the last stated order.
“Decrees in equity may be signed by the judge when pronounced, and shall be recorded in the chancery order book of the court without any other enrollment. And no process shall be issued or other proceedings had on any final decree *536or order until the same shall have been signed and recorded as aforesaid.” Section 4948 (3160), C. G. L.
The final decree was not filed and recorded until after the sale thereunder and the confirmation of the sale, which was reversible error. Fiehe v. Householder Co., 98 Fla. 627, 125 So. 2; Grimsley v. Rosenberg, 94 Fla. 673, 114 So. 553.
The order appealed from set' aside the order confirming the sale and ordered another sale of the property which cured the previous error.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. • •
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coombes v. City of Coral Gables, 124 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1936)…emption at a less amount than was assessed and levied. To support its contention appellee relies on: Aull v. Lidepa Corp., 118 Fla. 408, 159 So. 808; Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524; Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Corp., 115 Fla. 655, 155 So. 742; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439; DeVane v. Leatherman, 113 Fla. 216, 151 So. 530; City of Sebring v. Wolf, 105 Fla. 516, 141 So. 736; Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla. 984, 117 So. 507. The cases relied on by appellee support…
-
Draughon v. Florida Heitman, 124 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1936)…rman, 113 Fla. 216, 151 So. 530; Hackney v. McKenney, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524; Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 So. 546; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439; Tax Securities Corporation v. Manatee County, 115 Fla. 655, 155 So. 742. In the Aull v. Lidepa Corporation case, above cited, it was held that the allegation in the bill that complainant knew of nO' method for arriving at the true amount of tax barred relief, being equivalent to pleading that the court had no power to…
-
The Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co. v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 132 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1937)…ime, and the omission “shall in no way affect any process provided by law for the enforcement of the collection of any such tax.” Sec. 894 C. G. L. See Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524; Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Co., 115 Fla. 655, 155 So. 742; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439; State v. Lummus, 111 Fla. 746, 149 So. 650. In this case the holder of the municipal tax sale certificates may enforce the lien of the certificates to the extent of the amounts paid to the mun…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matilda P. Fiehe v. R. E. Householder Co., 98 Fla. 627 (Fla. 1929)
- Administratrix v. Rosenberg, 94 Fla. 673 (Fla. 1927)