BEACHLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
v.
AXEL PETERSON
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 the denial of a motion to vacate a final mortgage foreclosure decree, holding that a motion filed more than six months after the decree was entered is time-barred under statutory requirements for appeals in chancery.
The motion to vacate was properly denied as time-barred. A motion to vacate filed more than six months after entry of a final decree in chancery cannot circumvent the statutory six-month limitation on appeals, and courts are bound by this temporal requirement as strictly as members of the bar.
“If it is permitted to stand then the statute requiring appeals in chancery to be taken in six months can be circumvented and there is no time limit within which interlocutory and final decrees may be brought and reviewed.”
Establishes the court's rationale that permitting time-barred motions to vacate would effectively eliminate the statutory six-month appeal deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeachland Development Company sought to foreclose a mortgage against Axel Peterson. A final decree was entered on July 9, 1934. More than six months l…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
This case has appeared here on four previous occasions: Beachland Development Co. v. Peterson, 107 Fla. 658, 145 So. 837; Beachland Development Co. v. Peterson, 111 Fla. 349, 149 So. 423; 150 So. 225; and Beachland Development Co. v. Peterson, 117 Fla. 992, 159 So. 923.
The last appeal was from a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure entered July 9, 1934, and was dismissed on motion of appellee for failure of appellant to file transcript as required under the rules.
The instant appeal is from a decree denying a motion of defendant to vacate the final decree entered July 9, 1934, said final decree having been entered more than six months before the motion to vacate was filed and not being challenged as being void for want of authority to enter it. The motion to vacate also sought to stay the sale under foreclosure then being advertised and to review errors alleged to have been committed in entering the final decree.
The statute, Section 3168, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 4960, Compiled General Laws of 1927, limits the taking of appeals in chancery whether from final or interlocutory decrees to six months. The present appeal was taken January 30, 1935, the same day the decree denying the motion to vacate the final decree entered July 9, 1934, was promulgated and recorded but more than six months after said final decree which it was in effect designed to review. If it is permitted to stand then the statute requiring appeals in chancery to be taken in six months can *147be circumvented and there is no time limit within which interlocutory and final decrees may be brought and reviewed.
Courts are bound by the law no less than members of the bar. In our opinion, the motion to vacate the final decree was entered out of time and was properly dismissed. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed .
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, 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
-
Bartlett & Sons Co. v. Pan-American Studios, Inc., 144 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1940)…ster, 70 Fla. 200, 69 So. 720; Nail v. Browning, 74 Fla. 108, 76 So. 697; Buck v. All Parties, 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. 313; Reed v. Cromer, 86 Fla. 575, 98 So. 605; Eberle v. Wilson, 97 Fla. 384, 120 So. 851; [*533] Beachland Development Co. v. Peterson, 123 Fla. 145, 166 So. 323. It is next contended that one of the orders appealed from dated October 2, 1939, which corrected nunc pro tunc the date of the entry of the final decree from January 14, 1938, to January 14, 1939, was not only erroneous but it then an…
Authorities Cited
- Beachland Dev. Co. v. Axel Peterson, 111 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1933)
- Beachland Dev. Co. v. Axel Peterson, 107 Fla. 658 (Fla. 1933)
- Cicero Lewis v. State, 107 Fla. 614 (Fla. 1933)
- Acme Naval Stores Co. v. N. Inv. Corp., 111 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1933)