HAMILTON INVESTMENT TRUST, APPELLANT,
v.
ESCAMBIA DEVELOPERS, INC., M. G. DRAKE, AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF FLORIDA, INC., 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.
The court held that a chancellor's discretion to deny a deficiency decree in a mortgage foreclosure is not absolute and must be supported by disclosed equitable considerations.
Following a mortgage foreclosure, the trial court denied a deficiency judgment. Conflicting testimony was presented regarding the property's value, wi…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a deficiency following a mortgage foreclosure.
The testimony before the trial judge was concentrated upon the value of the property. One such witness placed the value at a sum less than the indebtedness, while another witness placed the value at a sum which exceeded the indebtedness.
“The discretion to grant (or deny) deficiency decrees in mortgage foreclosure suits, provided for by statute (Sec. 702.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), is not absolute and unbri- died but is a ‘sound judicial discretion’, Carlson v. Becker, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 116. The exercise of such discretion in denial of a deficiency decree must be supported by disclosed equitable considerations which constitute sound and sufficient reasons for such action. Scheneman v. Barnett, Fla. 1951, 53 So. 2d 641; Kissling v. McCarthy, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 434; Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 523; Colmes v. Hoco, Inc. of Dade County, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 524. Therefore, the determinative question here is whether the chancellor abused discretion in denying the mortgagees’ motion for a deficiency decree.” Larsen v. Allocca, Fla. App., 187 So. 2d 903.
If the value of the foreclosed property exceeds the debt, the chancellor is authorized in denying a deficiency. There is competent substantial evidence in this record to conclude that the trial judge found this was the case.
The judgment is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., RAWLS, J., and MCDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…uitable considerations supporting the trial court’s denial. Baxter v. Kobs, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhatten Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hamilton Investment Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). If the value of the foreclosed property exceeds the debt, the trial court is authorized to deny a deficiency. Though the evidence before the trial judge below was conflicting, there is competent substantial evidence in the recor…
-
Barnard v. First Nat'l Bank of Okaloosa Cnty., 482 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…the debt. We agree. We have held that the court is authorized to deny a deficiency if the fair market value of the property exceeds the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale. Hamilton Investment Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We have also held that the amount bid at the foreclosure sale is not conclusive on the issue of the mortgaged property’s value. Trustees of Central States Southeast and [*536] Southwest Areas, Pension Fund v. Indico Corporation,…
-
Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Valois, 570 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…foreclosure sale,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a deficiency judgment.4 Fiorentino, 512 So. 2d at 229; Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In the case before us, as in Fiorentino, there was sufficient evidence that the fair market value exceeded the amount of the debt owed. There was no basis for a deficiency judgment because the bank suffered no financial loss. Fi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carlson v. Becker, 45 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1950)
- Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corp., 145 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Scheneman v. Barnett, 53 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1951)
- Kissling v. McCARTHY, 100 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Colmes v. Hoco, 152 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Larsen v. Allocca, 187 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)