Conner v. Coggins
| Decision Date | 02 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. DD-471,DD-471 |
| Citation | 349 So.2d 780 |
| Parties | Marlin CONNER and Otelia Conner, his wife, Farmers and Dealers Bank of Lake Butler, Appellants, v. F. R. COGGINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wayne M. Carroll, Gainesville, for appellant.
John F. Roscow, III, and Ray D. Helpling of Scruggs, Carmichael, Long, Tomlinson, Roscow, Pridgeon, Helpling & Young, Gainesville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from final judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage. Appellant contends the action is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree and affirm.
The final judgment contains the following finding:
Neither the mortgage nor the installment contract were made a part of the record on this appeal. It is incumbent upon the appellant to bring to this court such parts of the record as are necessary to support his contentions on appeal. Howell v. State, 337 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976); Chipola Nurseries, Inc. v. Division of Adm. Dept. of Tr., 294 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1 DCA 1974).
Appellant not having included the mortgage in the record, we must conclude that the facts contained in the above finding are correct.
From the briefs, it does not appear that there is any dispute that this suit was filed more than five years from the date of the mortgage and more than five years from the date of default, but within five years of the maturity date of the final installment; and that the instruments did not contain an acceleration clause in the event of default. We must assume from the above quoted findings of the trial court (which are undisputed by the record before us) that the maturity date of the final installment is ascertainable from the recorded mortgage.
§ 95.11, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that an action to foreclose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Beauvais, 3D14–575.
...does not mention, much less disrupt. Examples abound.B. What Singleton Does Not DoSingleton does not overrule Conner v. Coggins, 349 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Locke v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 509 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), or Monte v. Tipton, 612 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 199......
-
Smith v. F.D.I.C.
...on mortgage foreclosure began to run at time of acceleration rather than at time of stated maturity date); Conner v. Coggins, 349 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (statute of limitations on a mortgage foreclosure action does not begin to run until the last payment is due unless the mor......
-
Harmony Homes, Inc. v. US, 95-498-CIV-T-17(B).
...of mortgage foreclosure began to run at time of acceleration rather than at time of stated maturity date); Conner v. Coggins, 349 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1977) (finding that the statute of limitations on a mortgage foreclosure does not begin to run on until the last payment is due unless ......
-
Brake v. Murphy, 96-824.
...materials relevant to the issues before the appellate court. See Morgan v. Pake, 611 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Conner v. Coggins, 349 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 300 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (analyzing record under Rule 3.6, the predecesso......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...So. 2d 1111, 1114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Reed v. Lincoln, 731 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); and most importantly Conner v. Coggins, 349 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Critically, the Fifth District rejected the borrower's argument because, as the bank "point[ed] out [] all cases cited t......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...So. 2d 1111, 1114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Reed v. Lincoln, 731 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); and most importantly Conner v. Coggins, 349 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Critically, the Fifth District rejected the borrower's argument because, as the bank "point[ed] out [ ] all cases cited ......