ROY E. LUCKHARDT AND LEONA LUCKHARDT, HIS WIFE, AND LUCKHARDT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH H. PARDIECK AND MARGARET W. PARDIECK, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal affirmed a final decree of foreclosure, holding that the lower court correctly determined there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiffs were entitled to foreclosure and attorney's fees as a matter of law. The appellate court also rejected the defendants' procedural arguments regarding the timing of testimony.
No, the lower court did not err. The court correctly concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of foreclosure and attorney's fees as a matter of law. The procedural rule cited by the appellants was not applicable because the case was never at issue.
“Having reveiwed the record, we hold that the lower court correctly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of foreclosure as a matter of law.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the lower court's decision on the merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants, who are the appellants in this case, were subject to a summary final decree of foreclosure entered against them by the lower court. Th…
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Summary final decree of foreclosure was entered against the defendants below, appellants here. Having reveiwed the record, we hold that the lower court correctly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of foreclosure as a matter of law. The same is also true as to the attorney’s fees awarded, appellants having failed to demonstrate that any issue was raised on this matter.
All of the questions raised in this appeal have been considered and disposed of adversely to appellants. The question raised by the fifth and sixth points on appeal, however, deserves some comment. Appellants contend that reversible error was committed by the chancellor in both denying their motion f.o strike appellees’ motion for summary decree and denying their motion for a decree on the complaint and answer. As grounds therefor they contend that ap-pellees failed to observe former F.R.C.P. 3.13, 31 F.S.A. which, at the time, required testimony to be taken within two months-from the time a cause was at issue unless a different time was set by order of the court. Said rule has no application to this case. On the authority of Rountree v. Rountree, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 794, cited by appellees, the instant cause was never at issue since-certain parties defendant to the cause as-described in the complaint had not answered or had decrees pro confesso entered against them.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rountree v. Rountree, 72 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1954)
- Luckhardt v. Pardieck, 142 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)