DESSER AND GARFIELD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, 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.
In this foreclosure appeal, Desser and Garfield, Inc. challenged the chancellor's final decree foreclosing a mortgage held by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, claiming deprivation of opportunity to present evidence, lack of notice, inadequate sale bid, and insufficient proof of the debt and default notice. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the foreclosure decree, finding no reversible error in the chancellor's findings and procedure.
The court affirmed the final foreclosure decree, finding no reversible error. The chancellor's finding that defendant did not intend to present evidence is entitled to deference and is not clearly erroneous. No notice requirement exists prior to entry of a final decree after hearing. The inadequacy of the bid price alone does not constitute error. Competent, substantial evidence supports the mortgage debt and notice of default.
“Such a finding by a chancellor who was present at the hearings should not be set aside by an appellate court in the absence of clear proof that it was erroneous.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for factual findings by the trial judge, particularly regarding witness credibility and intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeachers Insurance and Annuity Association brought a foreclosure suit against Desser and Garfield, Inc. on a mortgage. At trial, after plaintiff's cas…
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 Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
Desser and Garfield, Inc., defendant below, appeals from a final decree in a foreclosure suit brought by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, plaintiff below.
The defendant claims reversible error was committed when the chancellor deprived it of an opportunity to present evidence on the issues; that it did not receive notice prior to the entry of the final decree; that plaintiff’s bid at the foreclosure sale was inadequate, and that there was insufficient proof of the mortgage debt and the notice of default given to it.
There is a sharp conflict between the parties over whether the defendant actually did intend to present evidence at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The chancellor entered a lengthy “Order Correcting Record,” in which he stated that the defendant clearly indicated to him that it did not intend to present any testimony or evidence at the close of the plaintiff’s case and that it intended to rely on its final argument made on its motion for directed verdict.
Such a finding by a chancellor who was present at the hearings should not be set aside by an appellate court in the absence of clear proof that it was erroneous.1 There is ño such proof before us.
Appellant has not referred us to any authority which requires the chancellor, after final hearing, to give notice to the parties prior to the entry of his final decree. See: 30A Am.Jur.Judgments, §§ 26, 98. We do not find error in this regard.
The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not setting aside the sale because of the inadequacy of the- amount by which plaintiff bid in the mortgaged property. This does not necessarily constitute error. See Florida Statutes, Section 702.02 (5), F.S.A.; Ruff v. Guaranty Title & Trust Co., 99 Fla. 197, 126 So. 383 (1930); 22 Fla.Jur.Mortgages, §§ 366, 370.
Plaintiff filed a cross assignment of error directed to the denial by the chancellor of its claim for a deficiency decree, present or in the future, with prejudice. It has conceded that this cross assignment of error was waived should the final decree of foreclosure be affirmed. Since our ruling is to affirm the final decree of the chancellor, we conclude that the plaintiff has waived its cross assignment of error.
The record reflects competent, substantial evidence concerning proof of the mortgage debt and of notice of default to sustain the chancellor’s final decree.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lura Virginia Bickel Lee Carter, 446 F.2d 136 (5th Cir. 1971)…ng alleged, is not a ground for setting aside a foreclosure sale, Maule Industries Inc. v. Seminole Rock and Sand Company, 1957, Fla., 91 So. 2d 307; Desser and Garfield, Inc. v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, 1967, Fla.App., 201 So. 2d 497, and this rule seems particularly applicable in the case at hand where the sum offered by any prospective bidder would inevitably be affected and reduced by the government’s right to redeem the property within one year of the sale under 28 U.S.C. 24…
Authorities Cited
- Ruff v. Guar. Title & Tr. Co., 99 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1930)
- Stadler v. The Gerry Corp., 192 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)