HENRY LUKE
v.
ELIZABETH A. PHILLIPS
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 court held that the instant case is governed by the precedent set in Reid v. Miami Studio Properties Inc., which distinguished it from prior cases like Belle Mead Development Co. v. Reed.
Plaintiff sought to recover on a promissory note secured by a mortgage that had already been foreclosed without a deficiency decree. The defendant rai…
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
This writ of error is to a final judgment on a directed verdict secured in an action at law to recover on a promissory note. It appears that the note was secured by mortgage which had been foreclosed and no deficiency decree entered or requested at the time.
*161The question presented is whether or not the instant case is ruled by Reid v. Miami Studio Properties Inc. 139 Fla. 246, 190 So. 505, or Belle Mead Development Co. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300, 153 So. 843.
Plaintiff in error contends that the latter case is overruled by the former and that it (Reid v. Miami Studio Properties Inc., supra) should now be overruled and the law in Belle Mead Development Company case adhered to. He also contends that the court erred in refusing his equitable plea setting up a settlement of the balance due on the note made by counsel for appellee at the time of the foreclosure.
We have considered all these contentions but we have reached the conclusion that the instant case is ruled by Reid v. Miami Studio Properties Inc., wherein we pointed out that the facts of that case were distinct from those in the Belle Mead Development Co. case and that line of cases which were not inferentially or otherwise overruled.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Adams, J., agrees to judgment.
Brown, C. J., and Thomas, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
State v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1980)…ough they [*897] were clearly issued to achieve a present funding of future anticipated ad valorem tax revenues, were held to be outside the intent of the referendum requirement. This doctrine was made clear in Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So. 2d 799 (1941), where the Court, citing Tapers said: “[t]he construction of a county courthouse is an essential governmental requirement of the county and certificates of indebtedness for that purpose payable from budgetary requirements in due course of law…1 / 2
-
City OF Parker v. State, 992 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2008)…o. 666, 669 (1936). Despite this acknowledged purpose of the amendment, this Court held that the 1930 referendum requirement did not apply to certain forms of local obligations, which were not, in fact, bonds. Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So. 2d 799 (1941); State ex rel. Houston v. Hillsborough County, 136 Fla. 503, 183 So. 157 (1938); Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39 (1936). This Court explained its distinction between bonds and other obligations as follows: As a general rule, we h…
-
State v. Suwannee Cnty. Dev. Auth. OF Suwannee Cnty., 122 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1960)…the contrary, I think that said acts were intended to permit the Authority to accomplish its purpose in the very manner attempted herein and that the pledge of race track funds is clearly authorized. See Posey v. Wakulla County, 1941, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So. 2d 799. After all is said, it is apparent that the economy of Suwannee County had gotten in a bad way. Its people were casting about for means to revive it. They adopted the plan defined in Chapter 59-1903, Special Acts of 1959. It is, of course, an exper…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1934)
- Reid v. Miami Studio Props., Inc., 139 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1939)