J. H. SPAULDING, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN H. BOZIC, 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's final decree of foreclosure, holding that the trial court properly overruled the defendant's demurrer, struck his answer as pro confesso, and entered judgment in favor of the foreclosing mortgagee. The court also held that assignments of error concerning post-decree proceedings were not properly before it on appeal.
The trial court committed no reversible error in overruling the demurrer, striking the answer, or entering the final foreclosure decree. The court could not review assignments of error concerning orders entered after the final decree, as they were not properly brought before it on appeal.
“The appeal brings for review here the final decree and all previous orders or decrees entered in the cause, but does not bring for review any subsequent orders or decrees.”
Establishes the scope of appellate review when appealing a final decree—only the final decree and prior orders may be reviewed, not subsequent orders.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. H. Spaulding was a defendant in a foreclosure suit brought by John H. Bozic. Spaulding filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled on No…
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 Foreclosure Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
— This is an appeal from a final decree entered in a foreclosure suit on December 13, 1929. The assignments of error are as follows:
“That the court erred in entering that certain order dated the 5th day of November, A. D. 1929, overruling defendant’s demurrer.
2. The court erred in entering that certain order dated the 6th day of December, A. D. 1929, striking the answer of the defendant, J. IT. Spaulding, and entering pro confesso decree against said defendant.
3. The court erred in entering the final decree in this cause dated the 13th day of December, 1929.
4. The court erred in entering that certain order dated the 25th day of January, A. D. 1930, striking the defendant’s petition for rehearing.
5. The court erred in entering that certain order dated the 25th day of January, 1930, confirming master’s sale and special master’s report of sale.
6. T’he court erred in entering that certain order dated the 24th day of February, 1930, extending the time for entering a deficiency decree for a blank number of days.
*3787. The court erred in entering that certain order dated the 5th day of April, A. D. 1930, confirming master’s report of disbursements and entering deficiency judgment, and which said order denied and overruled defendant’s exceptions and objections to the master’s report of sale, and defendant’s exceptions and objections to the master’s report of disbursements and objections to the entry of a deficiency.”
The appeal brings for review here the final decree and all previous orders or decrees entered in the cause, but does not bring for review any subsequent orders or decrees. Hyer vs. Caro, 17 Fla. 332; Judson Lumber Corporation vs. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100, 66 Sou. 727; Co-operative Homestead Co. et al. vs. Dickman, 68 Fla. 462, 67 Sou. 140; Jackson vs. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557, 86 Sou. 510.
Therefore, the court may not consider the questions raised under assignments numbered 4 to 7, inclusive.
The record discloses no reversible error to have been committed in the proceedings from the institution of the suit to and including the entry of the final decree and, therefore, the decree appealed from should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delfino v. Delfino, 756 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spaulding v. Bozic, 102 Fla. 377, 135 So. 801 (1931); Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shields v. Ensign, 68 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1914)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557 (Fla. 1920)
- Judson Lumber Corp. v. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1914)
- Hyer's Executors v. Caro's Executrix, 17 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1879)
- Co-Operative Homestead Co. v. Dickman, 68 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1914)