U S 1-163RD STREET CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DOLORES GERARDO, APPELLEE
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.
This case involves an appeal from a summary final decree of foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the entry of the decree.
No, the trial court did not err in striking the defendant's answer as sham and entering a summary final decree of foreclosure.
“By this appeal we are called upon to review a summary final decree of foreclosure entered in favor of the appellee, plaintiff in the trial court.”
Introduces the nature of the appeal and the decision being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure. The defendant filed a general denial answer. After the plaintiff deposed the principal officer of the…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal we are called upon to review a summary final decree of foreclosure entered in favor of the appellee, plaintiff in the trial court.
To the complaint for foreclosure, the defendant filed a general denial answer. Subsequent to taking the deposition of the principal officer of the mortgagor, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the answer as sham and for entry of a summary final decree. Upon the decree being rendered, this appeal ensued. We find no error and affirm. See: Rule 1.14(a), Florida Rules of. Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.; Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 324; McNutt v. Sherrill, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 309; Wingreen Company v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 408; Feng Yeat Chow v. Shaughnessy, S.D.N.Y. 1957, 151 F.Supp. 23.
Affirmed.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirmance because the .affidavit submitted on petition for rehearing did not state a good defense.
PEARSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirmance because the .affidavit submitted on petition for rehearing did not state a good defense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fink v. Ira L. Powsner, 108 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- The Wingreen Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 171 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- John P. McNUTT Ad Litem of the Estate of Morris Margolis v. Sherrill, 141 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)