L. J. PATTERSON, II, AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF C. B. PATTERSON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUCE E. NEUBIG AND EDNA L. NEUBIG, HIS WIFE, AND GIRARD A. RUBERTON AND RUTH J. RUBERTON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Patterson sought to recover land by challenging a Sheriff's Deed from 1932, claiming the underlying judgment and execution were void due to a false sheriff's return of service. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendants, holding that Patterson failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the sheriff's return was false.
The court held that Patterson failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Sheriff's return was false. The trial court correctly granted judgment for the defendants, and the Sheriff's Deed remains valid.
“if 'under the existing state of the law, a return of a sheriff may be impeached in the absence of an allegation or proof of fraud or collusion, the testimony submitted by the plaintiff is far from clear and convincing, that the summons was not served by the Sheriff as stated in his return'”
The trial court's finding that Patterson's evidence was insufficient to impeach the Sheriff's return of service.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1952, C.B. Patterson filed an ejectment suit to recover lands, claiming that a Sheriff's Deed executed in February 1932 was invalid. The defendants…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
In February 1952, C. B. Patterson filed suit in ejectment against Bruce E. Neubig, Edna L. Neubig, his wife, Girard A. Ruber-ton and Ruth J. Ruberton, his wife, to recover possession of certain lands with profits therefrom. The answers tendered the defense of not guilty with other affirmative defenses, the fourth of which had to do with deraignment of title which showed that the source of title of all defendants was a Sheriff’s Deed executed by the Sheriff of Dade County February 29, 1932, under a levy made on the lands of C. B. Patterson by said Sheriff. To said answers the plaintiff filed motion raising the legal sufficiency of defendants’ title pursuant to provisions of Common Law Rule 48, 30 F.S.A. The real purpose of the complaint was to invalidate the Sheriff’s Deed of February 29, 1932 on the ground that the judgment and execution on which it was predicated were void in that the Sheriff made a false return of service in a certain suit brought against C. B. Patterson, the original plaintiff, by Standard Oil Company in Duval County. C. B. Patterson died during pendency of the litigation and the present plaintiffs, now appellants, were substituted as parties to the cause. The case was tried •by the Court without a jury and at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony defendants moved for judgment in their favor, which was granted. A final judgment was entered accordingly, from which this appeal was prosecuted.
The only point for determination is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to impeach the Sheriff’s return in the suit brought against C. B. Patterson by Standard Oil Company.
The trial court found that if “under the existing state of the law, a return of a sheriff may be impeached in the absence of an allegation or proof of fraud or collusion, the testimony submitted by the plaintiff is far from clear and convincing, that the summons was not served by the Sheriff as stated in his return; that the plaintiff has failed to sustain his objections to the legal sufficiency of the defendants’ chain of title and that the motions of the defendants for judgment should be granted.” We have examined the testimony and find no reason to overthrow the judgment and finding of the trial court on this point.
It is therefore our view that the plaintiff failed to prove that the return of the Sheriff was false. Having reached this conclusion other questions raised become unimportant and are not discussed.
The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.