LOVILLA J. COOPER
v.
GEORGE L. KNIGHT
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 confirming a foreclosure sale and a deficiency decree, finding that the sale should not have been confirmed based on the property's value. The court deemed the deficiency decree erroneously rendered as a consequence.
No, the order confirming the sale should not have been upheld, and the deficiency decree was erroneously rendered because the showing made as to the property's value indicated the sale should not have been confirmed.
“On the showing made as to the value of the property the sale should not have been confirmed; and the deficiency decree was consequently erroneously rendered.”
This quote establishes the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal from an order that confirmed a sale of land under a foreclosure decree. The same order also awarded a deficiency decree ag…
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 Foreclosure Sale Confirmation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order confirming a sale of lands under a foreclosure decree and awarding on motion a deficiency decree against the defendant. On the showing made as to the value of the property the sale should not have been confirmed; and the deficiency decree was consequently erroneously rendered. The issue of usury presented in defense of a deficiency decree need not be now considered as the order confirming the foreclosure sale is reversed. In Garner v. Slack, 112 Fla. 553, 150 So. 750, the motion for a deficiency decree was not challenged; there was as here a prayer for general relief. See Coe-Mortimer Co. v. Dusendschon, 113 Fla. 818, 152 So. 729; Atlantic Shores Corp. v. Zetterlund, 103 Fla. 761, 138 So. 50.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
. Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Shores Corp. v. Olof Zetterlund and Jeannette Zetterlund, 103 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1931)
- Coe-Mortimer Co. v. Dusendschon, 113 Fla. 818 (Fla. 1934)
- Garner v. Slack, 112 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1933)