JOHN MATLACK AND MARGARET M. MATLACK, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTEMUS W. OWEN AND JOSEPHINE OWEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
Defendants appealed from a mortgage foreclosure decree and deficiency decree in a case where the mortgagee sought to foreclose on both real and personal property. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that the chancellor's findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence and the discretionary decision to grant a deficiency decree was not an abuse of discretion.
The appellate court affirmed both the foreclosure decree and the deficiency decree, finding that the chancellor's factual findings were supported by sufficient evidence and that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in granting the deficiency decree.
“Where a chancellor has heard all the evidence, determined the weight thereof, observed the witnesses and determined their credibility, he is in a better position than an appellate court to determine the questions of fact presented.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to a chancellor's factual findings 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 intelligenceThe defendants executed and delivered a mortgage to the plaintiffs covering a motel and restaurant. The plaintiffs brought suit to foreclose the mortg…
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, defendants below, appeal a mortgage foreclosure decree and deficiency decree in favor of appellees, plaintiffs below.
Defendants executed and delivered to plaintiffs a mortgage covering a motel and restaurant. Plaintiffs ultimately brought a suit to foreclose the mortgage which they contended covered personal as well as real property. Defendants, on the other hand, maintained that the mortgage had been altered without their consent or knowledge to include the personal property. The chancellor found that the mortgage included the personal property in question and granted a final decree in plaintiffs’ favor. Subsequent to the sale of the foreclosed property, plaintiffs were successful in obtaining a deficiency decree against defendants. Defendants have taken appeals from both decrees and these have been consolidated for our consideration.
We have carefully reviewed the record including the testimony as to the events surrounding the execution of the mortgage. Although this testimony is conflicting in some instances, there is sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s findings. Where a chancellor has heard all the evidence, determined the weight thereof, observed the witnesses and determined their credibility, he is in a better position than an appellate court to determine the questions of fact presented. Premium Groves, Inc. v. Grand Island Citrus Cooperative, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 551. In such a case, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor. Baldwin v. Travelers Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 602.
Whether a deficiency decree is granted or denied rests within the chancel*604lor’s discretion. Weinstein v. Park Manor Construction Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 842. As a general rule, discretionary rulings should be sustained unless there is a showing that the chancellor has abused his discretion. Smoak v. Graham, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 559. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the chancellor abused his discretion in granting the deficiency decree.
In view of the foregoing, the decrees appealed are affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J, LILES, J., and DAYTON, ORVIL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S/D Enters., Inc. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…lmes, cited above. Thus, an exercise of sound judicial discretion consonant with equity in the light of the facts should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of a clear abuse of sound judicial discretion. See, e. g., Matlock v. Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); and Builders Finance Company, Inc. v. Ridgewood Home Sites, 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). After a careful review of the record in this case, in light of the principles set forth above and the other applicable principles gov…
-
Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…dicial discretion of the trial judge in light of the facts of the case, and will not be disturbed absent a positive showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Weinstein v. Park Manor Construction Co., 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Matlack v. Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Builders Finance Co., Inc. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). While granting of deficiency judgments is the rule rather than the exception, a denial is proper and will not be disturbed absent a clea…
-
Mandell v. Fortenberry, 290 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1974)…dricks, supra; Builders Finance Co. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 157 So. 2d 551; Maudo, Inc. v. Stein, Fla. App.1965, 171 So. 2d 403; Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp., Fla.App.1963, 173 So. 2d 738; Matlack v. Owen, Fla. App. 1966, 181 So. 2d 602. The majority opinion begs the question of the rights of Petitioners as deficiency judgment debtors. It does not directly agree with the District Court that the For-tenberrys had both lessor lease default rights and subrogation rights while Man-del…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smoak v. Graham, 167 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1964)
- Premium Groves, Inc. v. Grand Island Citrus Coop., Inc., 175 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. Jones, 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Weinstein v. Park Manor Constr. Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Baldwin v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 176 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)