JAMES G. CAMPBELL, ET UX.,
v.
PINE HOLDING COMPANY
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 final foreclosure decree involving eighteen tax sale certificates, addressing whether the properties should be sold en masse or separately and whether defendants must pay foreclosure costs. The court held that the decree properly required separate sales of each parcel and that defendants may be required to pay proportionate costs as a condition of redemption.
The court held that the decree properly required lands embraced in each certificate to be sold separately rather than in mass. The court also held that it was proper for the final decree to require defendants to pay costs of foreclosure, though such costs cannot be recovered as a deficiency judgment but rather as a condition of redemption prior to sale.
“The above quoted paragraphs of the decree clearly authorize that parcel of land described in each certificate to be sold separately and apart from other parcels described in other certificates.”
Establishes that the decree properly required separate sales of properties rather than en masse sale.
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 foreclosure of eighteen separate tax sale certificates, each covering one or more distinct lots. The trial court issued a final decr…
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 Apportionment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from final decree of foreclosure of certain tax sale certificates.
Appellant limits the questions to be determined by this Court to two, which are as follows:
“Where suit is instituted under Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, Etxra Session, Laws of Florida, to foreclose eighteen (18) separate tax certificates, each certificate covering one or more separate and distinct lots, should the Chancellor in his Final Decree of Foreclosure order the same to be sold in mass?’
“2. In a suit to foreclose tax certificátes, under Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, Extra Session, Laws of Florida, is it proper for the' Chancellor in his Final Decree of Foreclosure, to order the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and for the Clerk of the Court to tax same?”
• We do not think the first question is presented by the record.
As we construe the Final Decree, it requires the lands embraced in each of the certificates respectively to be sold separately.
*795The 7th and 8th paragraphs of the Decree are as follows:
“Seventh : That in the event of a sale of said lands any of the parties to this suit shall have the right to bid on and become the purchaser of said lands, or any parcel thereof, and if the Complainant is the successful bidder the amount bid by it shall be credited against the sums found to be due it under the terms of this decree, and it shall be required to pay in cash' only that portion, if any, of its bid representing the surplus of the indebtedness owing to it, as aforesaid, and the costs, fees and expenses of this proceeding, including said sale.
“Eighth : That in the event said lands are sold as herein provided, the Special Master shall apply the proceeds of the sale of each parcel in the following order: (a) in the payment of the costs and expenses of this proceeding; (b) to the solicitors of record for Complainant the amounts, respectively, found to be due complainant under each Tax Sale Certificate for principal, interest and attorney’s fees; (c) any balance remaining shall be paid into the registry of the Court to abide the further orders of the Court.”
The decree finds specifically the amount of taxes, interest and penalties due upon each certificate and also the proportion of the attorney’s fees allowed to be charged against the lands described in each certificate. The above quoted paragraphs of the decree clearly authorize that parcel of land described in each certificate to be sold separately and apart from other parcels described in other certificates.
We think that it was proper for' the final decree to require the defendant to pay the costs of foreclosure. Of course, this does not mean that a deficiency decree could be entered against the defendants for such costs, but it does mean that to redeem the lands embraced in any certificate the defendants, in addition to paying the principal, penalties *796and interest shown by the certificate and the attorney’s fees apportioned to that certificate, will be required to pay the proportion of costs chargeable to that certificate. The proportionate amount of costs so to be paid by any one or more of the defendants for the redemption of any one or more of the certificates shall be ascertained and determined by the Chancellor, if and when application for redemption is made prior to sale and confirmation.
Therefore, the decree appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fulton Saussy v. N. Inv. Corp., 122 Fla. 265 (Fla. 1935)…before enactment of Chapter 14572, Acts 1929); Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. Rep. 136; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. Rep. 439; City of Bradenton v. Lee, 120 Fla. 100, 162 Sou. Rep. 139; Campbell v. Pine Holding Co., 119 Fla. 793, 161 Sou. Rep. 726. The complainant having filed its' suit in February, 1934, to foreclose State tax certificates for 1930, 1931 and 1932 State and county taxes, was not required by Chapter 14572, Acts 1929, Laws of Florida, to pay 1933 taxes, or a…
-
Ivey v. Hunter, 126 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1936)…Sou. 136; Tax Security Corporation v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63, 137 Sou. 151; First Trust & Savings Bank v. West Lake Investment Co., 105 Fla. 590, 141 Sou. 894; Palbicke v. Takami, 112 Fla. 629, 151 Sou. 287; Campbell v. Pine Holding Co., 119 Fla. 763, 161 Sou. 726. For the reasons stated, the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed. [*139] Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…