SIMON F. WILLIAMS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CASPER HOWARTH, 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 reversed a mortgage foreclosure decree because the trial court made specific findings regarding the debtor's fractional ownership interests without any pleading or proof to support those findings, and because the decree ordered payment of unpaid taxes without establishing the amount actually due.
The decree cannot stand because it finds specific fractional ownership interests (one-third and one-sixth) without any basis in the pleadings or evidence, and it orders payment of unspecified amounts of taxes without establishing through pleading or proof what amounts are lawfully due.
“The bill of. complaint does not allege the quantity of the undivided interest of Simon F. Williams in and to the lots in Riverside Annex, nor the quantity of the undivided interest of the said Williams in and to the property in Atlantic Beach. The record discloses no evidence of the quantity of the undivided interest in either parcel of land.”
Establishes that the complaint and record lack any factual basis for determining the fractional ownership interests that were decreed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimon F. Williams mortgaged his undivided interests in property located in Riverside Annex and Atlantic Beach in Duval County, and certain lands in Cl…
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 Undivided Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
— This is an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure. The foreclosure was of a mortgage which pledged the undivided interest of Simon F. Williams in and to certain described lots in Riverside Annex in *710Duval County, and the undivided interest of Simon F. Williams in and to certain described lots in Atlantic Beach, Duval County, and also pledged certain described lands in Clay County.
The bill of. complaint does not allege the quantity of the undivided interest of Simon P. Williams in and to the lots in Riverside Annex, nor the quantity of the undivided interest of the said Williams in and to the property in Atlantic Beach. The record discloses no evidence of the quantity of the undivided interest in either parcel of land.
The Court in its decree found and adjudged the interest of Williams to be an undivided one-third (1/3) interest in the Atlantic Beach property and an undivided one-sixth (1/6) in and to the Riverside Annex property. We find no basis for this decree.
The bill alleges default in the payment of taxes but does not allege the amount of taxes due, nor does it allege any amount of taxes which have been paid by the complainant. Without finding the amount of taxes due the final decree provided as follows:
“That out of the proceeds of the sale of any of the .property hereinbefore described, the said Special Master shall pay the following charges and sums as herein decreed:
COB 97 PAGE 343
FIRST: All unpaid taxes on such of the above described premises as may be sold, and all sums necessary to redeem said property from tax sales; or in the event that Complainants shall have paid said taxes or any of them, repay said sums to the Complainant together with interest on such amount at the rate of eight per cent (8%) per annum from the date of such payment to the date of the sale of said premises. ’ ’
Without either allegation or proof as to the amount of taxes lawfully due and required to be paid, this provision of the decree appears to be unsupported and it leaves the amount required to be paid by the Master *711•under this provision entirely to the Master’s judgment and discretion to be based on information which may be acquired apparently in any manner by the Master.
We think this provision of the decree is not warranted by pleading and proof.
For the reasons stated, the decree should be reversed with directions that the chancellor may allow pleadings amended and take further testimony in regard to the matters herein mentioned and thereupon enter such decree in the premises as facts proven may warrant. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
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
-
Williams v. Dunn, 105 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1932)…statutory (sec. 954, C. G. L.) it is not proper for the foreclosure decree to require the payment of taxes at least when the amounts thereof have not been put in issue and duly adjudicated in the fore [*331] closure proceedings. Williams v. Howarth, 102 Fla. 709, 136 Sou. Rep. 345. The bill of complaint alleges that complainant “has incurred expenditures for abstracts of title and other expenses incident to and connected with the foreclosure of said mortgage and has incurred and will continue to incur exp…
-
State v. The Honorable Elwyn Thomas, 104 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1932)…ll confirm a sale made under other terms than those contained in the decree is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Circuit Judge. In the case of Williams, et al. vs. H'owarth, in which opinion was filed August 4th, 1931, reported 136 Sou. 345, we had under consideration the question of whether or not in view of the statute, section 954, supra, the following provisions of a final decree and foreclosure were proper, to-wit: “That out of the proceeds of the sale of any of the property here…
-
Fam. Invs., Inc. v. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 136 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…f the proceeds of a foreclosure sale was not involved and the court did not, directly or indirectly, recede from prior cases regarding its construction of § 954, C.G.L., now § 192.28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., set forth in the cases of Williams v. Howarth, 102 Fla. 709, 136 So. 345; State ex rel. East Shore Co. v. Thomas, 104 Fla. 501, 142 So. 240; Ziegler v. Baker, 104 Fla. 499, 142 So. 241; Collins Avenue & Ocean Inv. Co. v. Crawford, 114 Fla. 469, 154 So. 211; Taylor v. Finlayson, 128 Fla. 444, 176 So. 44. The…