JETTA CRAWFORD, A MARRIED WOMAN, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, THOMAS CRAWFORD,
v.
DEWING WOODWARD, A FEMME SOLE
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 addresses whether a plaintiff can pursue a deficiency judgment in a separate legal action after waiving that right in a prior mortgage foreclosure suit. The court held that such an action is barred if the plaintiff explicitly abandons the claim for a deficiency decree during the foreclosure proceedings.
No, a plaintiff cannot maintain a separate action at law for a deficiency if they have explicitly waived their right to a deficiency decree in the original foreclosure proceedings and no such decree was entered.
“While plaintiff in the foreclosure suit prayed for a de-' ficiency decree in case the property sold for less than the mortgage debt; yet the plaintiff in the motion for confirmation of the foreclosure sale, expressly states that “Complainants are not asking for a deficiency’ decree” and none was rendered by the chancellor; and having elected his forum and prayed for a remedy by deficiency decree which was waived or abandoned after decree of foreclosure and sale, an action at law cannot now be maintained for a deficiency.”
This quote encapsulates the core reasoning for barring the subsequent action at law.
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 foreclosed on a mortgage and the sale did not cover the full debt. Although the initial foreclosure complaint prayed for a deficiency de…
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 Deficiency Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Only a question of law is presented.
In an action to recover a balance, where a purchase money mortgage foreclosure sale did not produce an amount of money sufficient to pay the mortgage debt, and no deficiency decree was recovered^ there was a plea to the effect that the bill of complaint in the foreclosure, suit contained a prayer “That in case of such sale said property hereinabove described, if the amount realized shall not be sufficient to satisfy the amount found to be due to the complainant, and there should be a deficiency, then that a deficiency decree for such amount may be entered in favor of complainants and against the defendant herein.” It also appears that a Eter decree and sale the motion of the plaintiff for decree confirming the sale contains the following: “Complainants are not asking for a deficiency decree.”
The court overruled a demurrer to the plea. A replication was filed on which verdict and judgment for the defendant were rendered. Plaintiff took writ of error.
While plaintiff in the foreclosure suit prayed for a de-' ficiency decree in case the property sold for less than the mortgage debt; yet the plaintiff in the motion for confirmation of the foreclosure sale, expressly states that “Complainants are not asking for a deficiency’ decree” and none was rendered by the chancellor; and having elected his forum and prayed for a remedy by deficiency decree which was waived or abandoned after decree of foreclosure and sale, an action at law cannot now be maintained for a deficiency. Reid v. Miami Studio Properties, Inc., 139 Fla. 246, 190 Sou. Rep. 505, is not in point. See Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 101 Fla. 1325, 133 So. 569; Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300, 153 So. 843; Coffrin v. Sayles, 128 Fla. 622, 175 So. 236; Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42, 146 So. 641.
*40Affirmed.
■Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and'Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville v. Kassewitz, 156 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1945)…rtrayal will be of interest to the Bench and Bar of Florida. We think the law of the case is definitely settled by the opinions and judgments [*766] of this Court in the cases of Pierce v. Pasquerello, 125 Fla. 330, 169 So. 727; Crawford v. Woodard, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311 and Degge v. First State Bank of Eustis, 145 Fla. 438, 199 Sou. 564. Therefore, on authority of the opinions and judgments in these cases, and cases therein cited, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered Affirmed. CHAPMAN, C. J., TERREL…1 / 2
-
Higgins v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., 201 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…relief but if not asked for or if asked for and overlooked or not considered, the right of the claimant is not affected. He may sue at law and recover such portion as he may prove himself entitled to. Id. (Emphasis added). In Crawford v. Woodward, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311, 311 (1939), the supreme court, relying on Provost, Cragin, and Belle Mead and finding Reid distinguishable, determined that the plaintiff could not maintain an action at law after the foreclosure where the plaintiff prayed for a defici…
-
Reid v. Compass Bank, 164 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…relief but if not asked for or if asked for and overlooked or not considered, the right of the claimant is not affected. He may sue at law and recover such portion as he may prove himself entitled to. Id. (Emphasis added). In Crawford v. Woodward, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311, 311 (1939), the supreme court, relying on Provost, Cragin, and Belle Mead and finding Reid distinguishable, determined that the plaintiff could not maintain an action at law after the foreclosure where the plaintiff prayed for a defici…
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
- Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 133 So. 569 (Fla. 1931)
- Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1934)
- Reid v. Miami Studio Props., Inc., 139 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1939)
- Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1933)
- Milo O. Coffrin v. Sayles, 128 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1937)