SETH TYSON, ET UX.,
v.
FEED P. SPEAR
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 foreclosure decree, holding that an unaccepted offer by a mortgagee to accept less than the full mortgage amount did not bar foreclosure for the full amount after the offer lapsed.
No, an unaccepted offer to accept less than the full mortgage amount does not bar the mortgagee from foreclosing for the full amount after the offer has lapsed.
“In this case appeal is from a decree in a foreclosure suit.”
Identifies the nature of the case on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgagee offered to accept less than the face of the mortgage to release their claim against the security. This offer was made on August 20, 1934, …
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 Foreclosure Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case appeal is from a decree in a foreclosure suit. The only question presented for our determination is whether or not an offer made to Home Owners Loan Corporation on the 20th day of August, 1934, and which had not been accepted on or before the 21st day of May, 1935, wherein and whereby the mortgagee offered to accept less than the face of the mortgage to release his claim against the security described in the mortgage, is such an agreement on the part of the mortgagee as will bar his right to foreclose the mortagage against the mortgagor for the full amount of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage after the lapse of time above mentioned.
The matter, now having been presented, the decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
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
-
Reubin O'D. Askew v. Sonson, 409 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1981)…e reasons Congress passed what is known as the “Lieu Land Statute” which authorized the state to select unappropriated government lands in lieu of the deficiency in the short sections. See 43 U.S.C.A. § 851 (1976); Hampton v. Matheson, 121 Fla. 768, 164 So. 714 (1935). By an act of the legislature, section 6.01, Florida Statutes, approved July 25, 1845, the state assented to the terms of admission into the union and to the provisions of the acts of Congress respecting the public lands of the United States…