D. M. WILLIAMS, ET UX.,
v.
M. E. COTTRILL, ET AL.
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 the trial court properly struck portions of the defendants' answer for failure to allege sufficient facts to constitute a defense, and properly amended the decree nunc pro tunc to correct a typographical error in the property description.
The trial court properly struck the challenged portions of the answer because they failed to allege that the mortgage assignee had knowledge of the defendants' agreement with the mortgagor or that the agreement was on record when the lot was released, thus failing to establish any viable defense. The nunc pro tunc amendment was proper because it was a correction of form, not substance, conforming the property description to the record.
“the answer entirely fails to state, (1) that the assignee of the mortgage releasing Lot 5 at the time had any knowledge of any agreement upon the part of the mortgagor to make deeds to these defendants, or (2) that the agreement between the original mortgagor and these defendants was on record”
Establishes the critical defect in defendants' answer—failure to allege the mortgage assignee's knowledge of intervening rights
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter execution and delivery of a mortgage covering multiple lots in a subdivision, the defendants acquired an agreement with the mortgagors for purch…
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 is from a final decree of foreclosure.
Questions 1 and 2 propounded by appellants do not conform to the requirements of Amended Rule 20. The answer to each of these questions as stated must be determined by an analysis made by the Court of the entire record. In effect, the questions are: Was the decree entered justified upon consideration of the entire record? Such questions are in nowise helpful to t-he Court and do not indicate what error, if any, appellants rely on.
*410The third and fourth questions challenge the action of the Court in striking portions of the answer. The portions of the answer stricken were insufficient to allege any defense and, therefore, they were properly stricken. If facts supporting the theory of .defendants in the court below, appellants here, could constitute any defense to a foreclosure suit sufficient facts would have to be alleged to establish an equity on behalf of the answering defendant.
The answer here in short and in effect alleges that after the execution and delivery of the mortgage covering a number of lots in a subdivision, these defendants, for valuable consideration, acquired an agreement with the owners, mortgagors, for the conveyance to them of certain of the lots by good and sufficient warranty deeds. It alleges that after the execution of the mortgage the assignee holder of the mortgage released a certain lot, not in the agreement for purchase by the appealing defendants, for $250.00, that that particular lot was- of great value and that the release of it materially changed the burden on appellant’s lots to discharge the remainder of the mortgage and they claimed the right to have the lots for which they hold agreement for deed released on like terms as was. that other lot. But, the answer entirely fails to state, (1) that the assignee of the mortgage releasing Lot 5 at the time had any knowledge of any agreement upon the part of the mortgagor to make deeds to these defendants, or (2) that the agreement between the original mortgagor and these defendants was on record. Therefore, the answer fails to allege that the assignee of the mortgage released the lot referred to with any knowledge of any rights of these appealing defendants having intervened.
The record shows that the appealing defendants did not file their agreement for deed for record until after that *411other lot had been released from the mortgage, although the agreement had been executed and delivered to them long prior thereto.
Under this state of facts, there was no merit in the attempted defense and the parts of the answer were properly-stricken.
The fifth question challenges the power of the court to amend the final decree nunc pro tunc without notice to the defendants. The record shows that the amendment of the decree was one of form and not of substance because the amendment was to correct what was apparently a typographical error in description of the property included in the final decree so that the description would conform to that warranted by the record. There was no error in this. So the decree appealed from is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J. and Terrell, 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
-
State ex rel. The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Worth W. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1939)…. State v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 25 Sou. Rep. 575; Crill v. State Road Dept., 96 Fla. 110, 117 Sou. Rep. 796; Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 132 Sou. Rep. 677; State v. Drumright, 116 Fla. 496, 156 Sou. Rep. 721; Walters v. Blanton, 126 Fla. 428, 171 Sou. Rep. 230. The writ of prohibition is never allowed to usurp the functions of an appeal, writ of error or certiorari. (See authorities, supra.) The circuit courts of the State of Florida are courts of general jurisdiction — similar to the Court of King’s Be…
-
Lorenzo v. Honorable S. J. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1947)…eld: “Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct commission of errors on part of court that is proceeding within its jurisdiction.” In the case of Walters v. Blanton, County Judge, et al., decided December 8, 1936, as reported in 126 Fla. 428, 171 So. 230, this court held: “Demurrer to suggestion for writ to prohibit county judge from exercising jurisdiction in suit involving unlawful detainer held sustained, where it did not appear from petition or suggestion for writ that County Judge was without…
-
Columbo v. Legendre, 397 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…e to comply with a patently void order entered by the trial court without any vestige of jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So. 2d 74 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1974); Walters v. Blanton, 126 Fla. 428, 171 So. 230 (1936). Neither Columbo nor the school board had notice or opportunity to be heard. See State ex rel. O’Dare v. Kehoe, 189 So. 2d 268 (Fla.3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 812 (Fla.1967). We agree with the position asserted by the petitioner,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence