MARY E. HUHEEY, ET VIR.,
v.
WILLIAM H. POOLE
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 foreclosure decree, upholding the lower court's decision to grant both foreclosure and a deficiency decree. The court found that an alleged extension agreement, which was not properly pleaded and lacked consideration, did not bar the foreclosure or the deficiency judgment.
The court held that the foreclosure and deficiency decree were proper. The alleged extension agreement was not a valid defense because it was not pleaded and lacked consideration, and the deficiency decree was not an abuse of discretion.
“As to this question the decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion, and judgment in the case of the Stoneman Company, et al., v. Briggs & Warr, 110 Fla. 104, 148 So. 556.”
This quote establishes the basis for affirming the foreclosure, referencing prior precedent.
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 a foreclosure action where the complainant sought foreclosure and a deficiency decree. The appellant argued that an alleged extensio…
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 Extension Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from final decree in foreclosure. Bill prayed for foreclosure and for deficiency decree in event sale of property failed to satisfy amount of decree.
Appellant contends complainant was not entitled to foreclosure because of the existence of an alleged extension agreement. made after default without consideration and which agreement was not pleaded. As to this question the decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion, and judgment in the case of the Stoneman Company, et al., v. Briggs & Warr, 110 Fla. 104, 148 So. 556.
Appellant also contends that the Chancellor abused judicial discretion in rendering the deficiency decree, but the record fails to support the contention. Even if the alleged extension agreement had been sufficiently pleaded it would have constituted no defense as it appears- to have been without consideration and so vague and indefinite asi to be of no force or effect.
Decree should be affirmed.
It is so- ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thigpen v. Atlas Fin. Co. of Fla., 25 Fla. Supp. 105 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1965)…ere there is no consideration for an agreement to extend the time of payment, such an agreement is invalid. Brinson v. Herlong, 121 Fla. 505, 164 So. 137; Stoneman Company v. Briggs and Warr, 110 Fla. 104, 148 So. 556; Huheey v. Poole, 117 Fla. 325, 157 So. 889; International Shoe Company v. Carmichael, Fla., 114 So. 2d 436. Therefore, summary judgment must be entered against the plaintiff on his claim for conversion of the automobile involved in this case. With reference to the plaintiff’s claim for con…
Authorities Cited
- The Stoneman Co. v. Briggs & Warr, 110 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1933)