BRADFORD G. WILLIAMS, ET UX., (DEFENDANTS IN COURT BELOW), APPELLANTS,
v.
HOME OWNERS LOAN CORPORATION (PLAINTIFF IN COURT BELOW), 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure decree on a real estate mortgage, finding that the lower court's decision was not reversible error. The court found the bill of complaint sufficient and the proof supportive of its allegations.
No, the lower court did not commit reversible error. The bill of complaint sufficiently alleged the facts necessary for foreclosure, and the proof sustained these allegations.
“The bill of complaint sufficiently alleged all facts necessary to show the right of the plaintiff to have a decree of foreclosure.”
Establishes the sufficiency of the initial filing by the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Home Owners Loan Corporation filed a bill of complaint to foreclose a real estate mortgage. The defendants, Bradford G. Williams and his wife, fil…
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.
Appeal brings for review decree of foreclosure of' a real estate mortgage.
The bill of complaint sufficiently alleged all facts necessary to show the right of the plaintiff to have a decree of foreclosure.
The proof sustains the allegations of the bill of complaint.
The defendants in the court below filed an answer in which they denied generally the allegations of the bill of complaint as to default. They also alleged in general terms that there were extensions and modifications of the “mortgage and of the debt as alleged and also as to the time of payment thereof and that these defendants complied with and reasonably met such extent and modified terms prior to the filing of plaintiff’s bill.”
They included in their answer other allegations which constituted no defense to the foreclosure.
The allegations above quoted and the other allegations referred to, were stricken on motion.
There is no merit in any of the contentions presented by the appellant here. No reversible error is made to appear.
*537The decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman 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
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…SHEPHERD, C.J. It has long been said in the courts of this state that “every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 618, 615 (1939). Regrettably, the trial judge in this case has abandoned his post as a neutral overseer of the dispute between the parties, compelling us to grant Great American Insurance Company’s Petition for a Writ of Prohibition.1 This case arises…