GULF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NEWELL'S INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION; ELLIOTT C. NEWELL; JOSEPH C. MCCLURE; BREVARD TRUCK CENTER, INC., A CORPORATION; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EAU GALLIE, A CORPORATION; STATE OF FLORIDA; FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; SENTINAL STAR COMPANY, A CORPORATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES
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.
Gulf Life Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action, challenging the trial court's determination that the United States' second mortgage lien had priority over Gulf Life's first mortgage lien regarding an award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the foreclosure sale price was insufficient to reach the disputed attorneys' fees amount.
The court did not reach the merits, instead dismissing the appeal as moot because the foreclosure sale price ($55,000) was less than the total amount due Gulf Life for principal and interest, making the priority dispute over attorneys' fees immaterial to any practical outcome.
“An appeal should be dismissed where no practical result could be obtained by reviewing the question therein contained.”
Establishes the mootness doctrine and the court's rationale for dismissing the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf Life held a first mortgage on real property in Brevard County and sued to foreclose. The United States of America was named as defendant due to a…
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 Right Of Redemption cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was plaintiff in a suit to foreclose its mortgage which was a first lien on certain real property in Brevard County. Appellee, the United States of America, was named a defendant by reason of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor which was subordinate to the plaintiff’s mortgage lien. Subsequent to the suit being filed the United States of America filed an amended answer alleging that it also held a second mortgage on the subject property by virtue of an assignment from the First National Bank of Eau Gallie to the Small Business Administration, an agency of the federal government.
In due course, the court entered a summary final judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff, finding that there was due plaintiff on its mortgage the sum of $66,366.18 for principal and interest, $3,500 as attorneys’ fees, and $96 in costs. The judgment provided that these amounts were a lien on the property superior in dignity to any right, title, interest, estate or claim of the defendants, and each of them, except that the lien of the second mortgage held by the United States of America on which the sum of $30,631.71 was due, was superior to the lien of Gulf Life’s mortgage as to the award of attorneys’ fees of $3,500. The property was ordered sold and at the foreclosure sale the property was bid in and purchased by Gulf Life for $55,000. Subsequently, Gulf Life filed a motion for a deficiency judgment.
In taking this appeal from the summary final judgment of foreclosure, appellant asserts as its sole point that the trial court erred in holding that the lien of the second mortgage held by the United States of America was entitled to priority over the lien of plaintiff’s mortgage for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. Although both parties have briefed and argued the merits of this question, appellee has also urged us to dismiss the appeal as moot.
The question of priority between plaintiff’s award of attorneys’ fees and the amount due the United States of America on its second mortgage would be material only if the amount bid at the foreclosure sale exceeded the amount due plaintiff for principal and interest on its mortgage. Since plaintiff’s successful bid was less than the total amount due it for principal and interest, the point on appeal becomes academic. An appeal should be dismissed where no practical result could be obtained by reviewing the question therein contained. Dehoff v. Imeson, 1943, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258. Even if the United States should exercise its right to redeem within one year after sale pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2410 (c) (d) the amount which the government would have to pay to plaintiff (exclusive of interest and possibly some expenses not material here) would be the amount of the obligation owed plaintiff to the extent that it was satisfied by reason of such foreclosure sale, to-wit: $55,000. Thus, the issue presented to us is moot and the appeal should be dismised.
Dismissed.
McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF THE Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Reg'l Planning Council & City Nat'l Bank of Miami, 447 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…3 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1953); Alabama Coal Company v. Bowden, 44 Fla. 163, 31 So. 820 (1902); Halloran v. Pensacola Association of Life Underwriters, Inc., 395 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Gill v. City of North Miami Beach, 156 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Coursen v. City of South Daytona, 127 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); Bliven v. Turville, 100 So.…
-
Zeltzer v. Zeltzer, 458 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ar and a month forever ... the purpose of this act is ... to [*416] acknowledge that the time perception of children differs from that of adults. (Footnote omitted.) Further, this court said in Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell's Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858, 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969): An appeal should be dismissed where no practical result could be obtained by reviewing the question therein contained. DeHoff v. Imeson, 1943, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258. If appellant believes dismissal is inappropriate,…
-
Polly P. Seidner v. Seidner, 385 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ch have been mooted by the action of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (Fla.1943); Young v. Quinn, 351 So .2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); F. S. Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Conceding mootness, the appellant urges that the issues in this case are “capable of repetition, yet evadin…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)