O. H. THOMASON, APPELLANT,
v.
W. A. JERNIGAN, CLAIRE C. JERNIGAN, RANDOLPH PRITCHETT, MARTHA MAE PRITCHETT, CITY OF CRESTVIEW, COUNTY OF OKALOOSA, ORSBIA GOODWIN, GERTRUDE GOODWIN AND SOUTHEASTERN GUARANTEED TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
In this tax certificate foreclosure appeal, the court addressed what costs and expenses a plaintiff can recover as part of the amount due on a tax lien. The court held that while certain costs require proper pleading allegations, a title search expense that was properly alleged and evidenced was improperly disallowed and must be included in the foreclosure decree.
A plaintiff in a tax certificate foreclosure is entitled to recover taxes paid to preserve the lien, title search expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees, but must show the right to such items by proper allegations in the complaint and supporting proof. The title search expense of $35.00 was properly pleaded and evidenced and should have been allowed; however, the taxes and attorney's fees were improperly claimed without proper allegations or proof in the record.
“There can be no question but that in foreclosure proceedings of this kind plaintiff is entitled to claim as part of the amount due him such amounts as he has paid for taxes against the property in order to preserve the lien of his tax certificate. He is also entitled to be reimbursed for litigation expenses, including the amount expended in procuring a title search in order to ascertain the parties to be named as defendants. He is also entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee.”
Establishes the general entitlement of foreclosure plaintiffs to recover certain costs and expenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO. H. Thomason held a municipal tax certificate and brought a foreclosure action against multiple defendants. In his bill of costs, Thomason claimed r…
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 Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree foreclosing a municipal tax certificate held by plaintiff. Prior to the entry of the decree-plaintiff filed in the cause a bill of costs. The final decree found the amount due-plaintiff on the tax certificate and included in the decree an allowance for certain items-of costs expended by plaintiff in the foreclosure suit. By his bill of costs plaintiff claimed reimbursement for the following: items, to-wit: County taxes paid, $9.27;. Title Search, $35.00; Attorney’s Fee, $50.-00. The mentioned items of alleged costs-claimed by plaintiff were disallowed by the chancellor in the final decree. By his appeal plaintiff contends the court erred in-disallowing the abovementioned claim for alleged costs.
There can be no question but that in foreclosure proceedings of this kind plaintiff is entitled to claim as part of the amount due him such amounts as he has paid for taxes against the property in order to preserve the lien of his tax certificate. He is also entitled to be reimbursed for litigation expenses, including the amount expended in procuring a title search in order to ascertain the parties to be named as defendants. He is also entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee.
It is fundamental rule of pleading that before a plaintiff in a lien foreclosure suit is entitled to the foregoing items he must show his right thereto by proper allegations in his complaint. The basic law of this-state on the subject is as follows:
“If the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure suit desires to be reimbursed for his attorneys’ fees, expenses incurred as a result of the necessity of bringing a foreclosure suit or taxes paid by him, he must show his right thereto by proper allegations in his complaint. The requirement for showing the right *889to attorneys’ fees is fulfilled where the mortgage is made a part of the complaint and contains a provision under which the mortgagor agrees to pay attorneys’ fees in the event that foreclosure is necessary.” 1
An examination of the complaint filed by plaintiff reveals a complete absence of any allegations with respect to the prior payment of taxes. This is not an item of costs for which reimbursement is authorized by merely including it in a motion for taxing costs.
Although the complaint does allege a claim for reasonable attorneys’ fees, no proof in support of this allegation is found in the record. The chancellor did not commit error in disallowing these two items of claimed disbursements made in connection with the foreclosure proceeding.
We do find, however, that by proper allegations of the complaint plaintiff claimed as part of his tax lien the expenses necessarily incurred in procuring a title search of the property. His certificate attached to the bill of costs submitted for the chancellor’s consideration recites that the sum of $35.00 was necessarily expended in procuring a title search of the property in connection with the institution and maintenance of the proceeding. No objection to this item by defendants appears in the record. We must conclude a proper showing was made entitling plaintiff to reimbursement for the amount expended in this behalf, and the amount of disbursement should have been allowed by the chancellor as a part of the tax lien for which foreclosure of the property was ordered.
The decree is reversed with directions that an amended decree be entered in accordance with the views expressed herein.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Chief Judge, and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. Fla. Home Mortg. Co., 165 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…So. 2d 346. . Shaw v. Morrison, 145 Fla. 443, 199 So. 566, 567 (1941). . Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 So. 667 (1933). . Security Land & Investment Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 So. 23 (1934). . O. H. Thomason v. Jernigan, 151 So. 2d 887 (Fla.App.1st, 1963).…
-
Garden City Inv., Inc. v. Nordberg, 176 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…ank v. West Lake Investment Co., 105 Fla. 590, 141 So. 894 (1932).. . Shaw v. Morrison, 145 Fla. 443, 199 So. 566 (1941); Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. 111, 176 So. 442 (1936); Leland v. Andrews, 129 Fla. 429, 176 So. 418 (1937). . Thomason v. Jernigan, 151 So. 2d 887 (Fla.App.1st, 1963). . Brooks v. Florida Home Mortgage Co., 165 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.1st, 1964). . Florida Home Mortgage Co. v. Cantrals, 163 So. 2d 346 (Fla.App.1st, 1964). . Brooks v. Florida Home Mortgage Co., supra.…