BLANCHE (KEITH) CARPENTER
v.
BLISH D. LEE
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 mortgage foreclosure decree, holding that a co-defendant's claims for an accounting against another defendant were irrelevant to the foreclosure action and did not constitute a defense. The court found no error in striking portions of the co-defendant's answer that pertained to these unrelated financial disputes.
No, the trial court did not err in striking the portions of the appellant's answer. The alleged unsettled accounts and collusion between co-defendants were irrelevant to the mortgage foreclosure action and did not constitute a valid defense against the foreclosure.
“Those portions stricken were entirely irrelevant and immaterial and constituted no defense in the foreclosure suit.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the striking of the appellant's answer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was a co-defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit, inheriting an interest in the mortgaged property. She filed an answer alleging unsett…
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 Heirs At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the appellant was a co-defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit. She was made defendant because she was one of the heirs at law of the mortgagor and inherited' an interest in the mortgaged property, subject, of course, to the mortgage. She was served with process and filed answer in which she alleged that there were certain unsettled and unliquidated accounts between herself and her co-defendant and in general terms' alleged that there was collusion between the complainant in the foreclosure suit and her co-defendant to effectuate the foreclosure of the mortgage. She does not allege that the complainant was indebted, or had ever been indebted, to her in any amount. She made no allegations which questioned the validity of the mortgage or that it was past due and unpaid. Portions of her anstver were stricken. Those portions stricken were entirely irrelevant and immaterial and constituted no defense in the foreclosure suit. The most her answer showed was that she was' entitled to'an accounting as between herself and her co-defendant, with which accounting the complainant was not shown by any allegations to have any interest whatever.
We find no error in the decree appealed from. Same should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1995)…ly appointed. The time to be given a defendant to obtain counsel and prepare for his defense is within the discretion of the trial court, “controlled by what is fair, right, and reasonable in each particular case.” Brown v. State, 116 Fla. 587, 588, 156 So. 606 (1934). Our independent review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court as to this claim. Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 610, 121 L.Ed.2d 545 (1992). Based on the foregoing…
-
Kovner v. Louie L. Wainwright, 149 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1962)…o go on trial at that time and requesting a continuance, announced to the trial court at the commencement of the proceedings that he was “ready for trial.” In both Reed v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630 and Brown v. State, 1934, 116 Fla. 587, 156 So. 606, it was held that there had been no denial of the right to time to prepare for trial where the defendant announced to the court his readiness for trial. In each of those cases, however, the defendant was represented by counsel when the cause came on…1 / 2