FRANK T. BAKER, ET UX., AND M. T. GORDON, JR., ET UX.,
v.
VERO INDIAN RIVER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
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 and deficiency judgment entered against married women mortgagors, rejecting their challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jurisdiction to enter the orders.
The trial court did not err. Substantial evidence in the record supported the foreclosure decree and the deficiency judgment. The trial court had jurisdiction to enter the order confirming sale and deficiency judgment on December 4, 1935, because the supersedeas was not perfected until December 7, 1935.
“a careful consideration of the record discloses substantial evidence to sustain the findings and the decree”
The court's standard for review and finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate insufficient evidence to support the foreclosure decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank T. Baker and M. T. Gordon, Jr., along with their wives, executed a mortgage to the Vero Indian River Producers Association. The association brou…
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 Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case brings for review final decree of foreclosure entered on the 14th day of October, 1935. And there is also a second appeal which brings for review order confirming sale and granting deficiency judgment entered on the 4th day of December, 1935.
The appellants in their brief filed under amended rule 20 say that there are two questions to be determined, which are stated as follows:
*324“Question Involved No. 1.
“Where the accounting tendered by the association in the course of a foreclosure suit shows the married woman’s claim of full payment to be correct unless items are added to the mortgage debt that are due under the contract and not under the mortgage debt and that do not constitute indebtedness chargeable against the separate real property of the married woman under Article II of the Constitution of Florida, ought the final decree to be in favor of the plaintiff association or in favor of the married woman mortgagor?”
“Question Involved No. II.
“Did the Circuit Judge have jurisdiction to confirm the sale at the time he undertook to do so, and, if he had such jurisdiction, did he exercise his discretion properly to confirm said sale and enter said deficiency judgment in the state of the record at the time of the entry of said order of confirmation and for deficiency judgment?”
The question numbered I does not more than challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree. The question as stated assumes that it appears conclusively from the record that “unless items are added to the mortgage debt that are due under the contract and not under the mortgage” the account tendered by the complainant in the court below shows that the mortgage has been paid in full. The assumption is not -warranted by the record.
We can see no useful end to be gained by a discussion of the voluminous evidence presented. It is sufficient to say that a careful consideration of the record discloses substantial evidence to sustain the findings and the decree.
The second question must be resolved against the contention of the appellant because the record shows that at the time of the entry of the deficiency judgment and the order confirming the sale no supersedeas had been perfected. The order confirming sale and entering deficiency judgment was *325entered on the 4th day of December, 1935, as heretofore stated, while the supersedeas was not perfected until the 7th day of December, 1935. So it appears that the court on December 4th, 1935, had jurisdiction to enter order confirming sale and deficiency judgment. See Priest v. Hogan, 85 Fla. 457, 96 So. 408.
There is nothing in the record to show any abuse of discretion by the lower court in entering the order confirming sale and the deficiency judgment at the time same was entered.
For the reasons stated, the decree and orders appealed from should be affirmed and 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
-
Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…was never superseded or stayed in any manner. The enforcement thereof did not affect the appellate jurisdiction of this court and, absent supersedeas, was enforceable pending appeal. Id. at 473; see also Baker v. Vero Indian River Producers Ass’n, 124 Fla. 323, 168 So. 536 (1936) (accord); Katz v. N.M.E. Hosps., Inc., 842 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (accord); FMS Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (accord). Because Ms. Mann-Stack had posted no supersedeas bond a…
-
Steele v. Greely B. Steele and Dessie Steele, 558 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…at $150,000, and that appellants chose not to post such bond. Because appellants elected not to post bond, the trial court had continuing jurisdiction to enforce the previously entered final judgment. See Baker v. Vero Indian River Producers Ass’n, 124 Fla. 323, 168 So. 536 (1936); Finst Dev., Inc.; FMS Management Sys. Moreover, “[t]he power of the courts to revise their judgments and decrees for the protection of adjudicated rights in relation to changed conditions that affect those rights with respect t…
Authorities Cited
- Miami Fisheries Co. v. Cates, 85 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1923)
- Priest v. Hogan, 85 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1923)