H. P. FARRAR, ET UX.,
v.
GAVINO GUTIERREZ, ET AL., AS EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF NELLIE GUTIERREZ, DECEASED (PLAINTIFFS BELOW) AND B. W. FARRAR AND A. B. BURNHAM (DEFENDANTS BELOW)
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 court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for an oral contract extension due to insufficient evidence.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the existence of an oral contract extension, as required to recover damages.
The plaintiff, an employee, sued for damages under an alleged oral extension of his employment contract, claiming entitlement to six months' pay upon …
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 Deficiency Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
We here review a decree awarding a deficiency judgment in a mortgage case.
The two questions presented by appellants in the brief are stated as follows:
“First Question. Where the bill of complaint in a mortgage foreclosure contained no special prayer for a deficiency judgment, nor a prayer for general relief, and there was no special application made after Master’s sale for a deficiency judgment, did the court have authority under such circumstances to enter a deficiency decree against the defendants ?
• “Second Question. Under the facts disclosed by the *307record in this case, did the Chancellor abuse .his discretion in entering a deficiency decree against the defendants?”
The first question must be eliminated because in the decree appealed from the Chancellor Says’:
“This cause having been set for this day to be heard upon the Master’s Report of sale and the complainant’s motion for confirmation and for deficiency decree, and the parties being present by their respective solicitors, and evidence having been introduced,” etc.
There being no showing in the record to the contrary, the certificate of the Chancellor to the effect that hearing was on complainant’s motion * * * for deficiency decree must be taken as a verity.
As it is not made clearly to appear that the Chancellor abused judicial discretion in entering the deficiency decree for the balance of the adjudicated debt, we must affirm the decree.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Davis, J., concurs specially.
(concurring). — Appellant’s theory in this case appears to comprehend among other things, the idea that when a mortgage is foreclosed, and the security is bid in by the mortgagee complainant, that in such case the mortgagor is entitled to have the security, or the avails thereof, valued as a basis for determination of what is recoverable by way of deficiency judgment — the postulate for this theory being that when a creditor holding security reduces such security to his possession through forclosure and purchase thereof at foreclosure sale, that in such cases the creditor “owes” in effect the duty of giving credit on his debt, the *308admitted or established value of the security, less the judicial sales price bid and paid for it, where it is made to appear that the actual value is much greater than the judicial sales price. The foregoing theory recently has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in a bankruptcy case involving a mortgage deficiency. See Ivanhoe Building & Loan Assoc. v. Orr, 55 U. S. Sup Ct., 685, 79 L. Ed. -, decided April 29, 1935.
Davis, J.
(concurring). — Appellant’s theory in this case appears to comprehend among other things, the idea that when a mortgage is foreclosed, and the security is bid in by the mortgagee complainant, that in such case the mortgagor is entitled to have the security, or the avails thereof, valued as a basis for determination of what is recoverable by way of deficiency judgment — the postulate for this theory being that when a creditor holding security reduces such security to his possession through forclosure and purchase thereof at foreclosure sale, that in such cases the creditor “owes” in effect the duty of giving credit on his debt, the admitted or established value of the security, less the judicial sales price bid and paid for it, where it is made to appear that the actual value is much greater than the judicial sales price. The foregoing theory recently has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in a bankruptcy case involving a mortgage deficiency. See Ivanhoe Building & Loan Assoc. v. Orr, 55 U. S. Sup Ct., 685, 79 L. Ed. -, decided April 29, 1935.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Builders Fin. Co., Inc. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…dicial discretion of the chancellor consonant with equity in the light of the facts of the given case and will not be disturbed unless there is a positive showing of a clear abuse of discretion. [*553] See: Farrar v. Gutierrez, et al., 119 Fla. 306, 161 So. 394 (1935); Tendler v. Gottlieb, 126 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1961). Ridgewood cites Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Moscovitz, 119 Fla. 708, 161 So. 80 (1935) to support its contention that the price bid at the foreclosure sale was conclusive as be…
-
Tendler v. Gottlieb, 126 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…and a party complaining of such a decision on appeal must carry the burden of making a clear showing of abuse of judicial discretion. Exchange Nat. Bank of Tampa v. Clark-Ray-Johnson Co., 95 Fla. 730, 116 So. 648; Farrar v. Gutierrez, 119 Fla. 306, 161 So. 394. The value of the mortgaged property was not revealed. The fact that the leasehold was sold on foreclosure for $1,000 subject to a $315,000 prior mortgage does not show price inadequacy. Nor was inadequacy made to appear by the fact that the lease w…