LORENE KENNEDY, FORMERLY LORENE SMALLWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
SANFORD KAY AND REBECCA KAY, HIS WIFE, AND SAM KAY, A SINGLE MAN, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a lower court's denial of a deficiency decree after a mortgage foreclosure sale. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient justification for the denial.
Yes, the denial of the deficiency decree was justified. The facts and circumstances presented were sufficient to support the lower court's decision.
“This is an appeal from a post decretal order which denied a deficiency decree, in a suit for foreclosure of a third mortgage on certain real estate.”
Describes the procedural posture of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-mortgagee foreclosed on a third mortgage and purchased the property for $7,000. The property was subject to two prior mortgages with an …
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 Equity In Property cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a post decretal order which denied a deficiency decree, in a suit for foreclosure of a third mortgage on certain real estate. The amount due under the decree was $11,388.67. The property involved was bought in on the foreclosure sale by the plaintiff-mortgagee for $7,000 subject to two prior mortgages on which the unpaid balance aggregated $41,-200, leaving a deficiency sum of $4,388.67. There was evidence that the equity in the property, that is, the value above the outstanding mortgage indebtednesses was in excess of $27,000. This and other facts and circumstances disclosed on the record were sufficient to justify denial of the motion for deficiency decree. See Kissling v. McCarthy, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 434. Compare Carlson v. Becker, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 116; Houk v. Weiner, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 304.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. Hy Levine, 159 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…. Prine, 101 Fla. 967, 132 So. 464; Carlson v. Becker, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 116; Houk v. Weiner, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 304; Scheneman v. Barnett, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 641; Kissling v. McCarthy, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 434; Kennedy v. Kay, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 345; Galloway v. Musgrave, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 846. 851; 16 U.Miami L.Rev. 745, 749 (1962).…
-
Bismark Constr., Inc. v. Melville Brown and Evelyn K. Brown, 507 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See & compare Houk v. Weiner, 53 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1951); Taylor v. Prine, 101 Fla. 967, 132 So. 464 (1931); Jonas v. Bar-Jam Corp., 170 So. 2d 479 [*167] (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Kennedy v. Kay, 154 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).…
Authorities Cited
- Carlson v. Becker, 45 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1950)
- Kissling v. McCARTHY, 100 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Carnasion v. Paul, 53 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1951)