L. H. VINNEDGE
v.
ATLANTIC SHELL COMPANY
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 lower court's decision to grant a writ of assistance, finding that the appellant's answer in opposition to the writ was insufficient to establish a defense. The case involved the foreclosure of a mortgage or trust deed.
No, the allegations in the appellant's answer were insufficient to show any defense to the issuance of the writ of assistance.
“The allegations of the answer were insufficient to show any defense to the issuance of the writ of assistance.”
This quote establishes the core reason for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure suit and was in possession of at least part of the property during the proceedings. After 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 Writ Of Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the appeal is from decree granting writ of assistance pursuant to foreclosure and sale of property in proceedings to foreclose a mortgage or trust deed.
Appellant was one of the defendants in the foreclosure suit.
When petition was filed praying writ of assistance appellant was in possession of at least a part of the property of which he'was in possession at the time of the institution of the suit and at all times during the progress of the suit, as is shown by his answer.
The appellant filed answer in opposition to the writ of assistance.
Motion was made to strike paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the answer, which motion was granted.
The allegations of the answer were insufficient to show any defense to the issuance of the writ of assistance.
The order granting motion to strike was without error and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.