Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-767,64-767 |
| Parties | L. G. FRUMKES, Appellant, v. The MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CORP., a Florida corporation, Leonard Adelman and Dorothy Adelman, his wife, Martin Wasserman and Adrienne Wasserman, his wife, and Joseph Weisberg, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Abbott & Frumkes, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Robert B. Ely, Miami, for appellees.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
The plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure suit appeals from an order denying her motion for a deficiency decree, and from a denial of her petition for rehearing addressed thereto.
A final decree of foreclosure was entered by the late Circuit Judge Robert H. Anderson on September 10, 1963. It did not reserve jurisdiction for deficiency decree. At the foreclosure sale the property involved was brought by the plaintiff for $2,000, leaving a deficiency sum of $15,211.77. The foreclosure sale was confirmed by a certificate issued on October 8, 1963. Plaintiff's motion for deficiency decree was filed more than 10 days thereafter, on October 23, 1963. Defendants filed objections. In addition to contending that the motion for deficiency decree came too late, 1 the objections presented certain equitable considerations relied on by defendants as grounds for denial or partial denial of the deficiency decree sought by plaintiff. The motion was dismissed by the following order:
'This Cause came on to be heard before me upon Plaintiff's Motion for Deficiency Decree and being fully advised herein, the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to enter a Deficiency Decree herein and therefore the court declines to proceed upon said Motion for Deficiency Decree of the Plaintiff, it is therefore
'Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that this court shall not rule upon the merits of Plaintiff's Motion for Deficiency Decree and therefore the same is hereby dismissed.'
Three days later, on December 6, 1963, the chancellor vacated that order and entered another order by which he denied the motion for deficiency because it was filed more than 10 days after the certificate of title issued, which order was as follows:
'This Matter coming on to be heard upon the Plaintiff's Motion for Deficiency Decree and the Defendants' Objection thereto, and the Plaintiff having, by counsel, admitted that the same is with merit, and the Court finding that the Plaintiff delayed in calling up his prayer for a Deficiency Decree for more than ten days after the Clerk had issued a Certificate of Title, it is therefore,
'Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Order heretofore submitted by the Plaintiff and inadvertently entered by the Court on December 3, 1963, is cancelled, set aside, revoked and held for naught, and it is further
'Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, on the authority of Katz v. Koolish, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 759, that because of the delay and neglect, Plaintiff's Motion for a Deficiency Decree is hereby denied.'
Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing seeking clarification of the order of December 6 as to whether her motion for deficiency decree was denied only because it was filed too late, or whether its denial also was grounded on a consideration of the merits of the equities suggested in the filed objections. The chancellor's death intervened before a ruling thereon. A successor chancellor denied the petition for rehearing, using language which the parties have suggested implies his holding that Judge Anderson's order of December 6, 1963, amounted to a denial of the deficiency decree on the merits of the equities raised by the objectors. The order denying the petition for rehearing was in the following language:
'This cause coming on to be heard on Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing filed December 13, 1963, and the court having examined the file and the memoranda filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and it appearing that the late Judge Anderson on December 3 decreed that the court should not rule on the merits of Plaintiff's Motion for Deficiency Decree; and thereafter, and on December 6, 1963, the said Judge Anderson cancelled, set aside, revoked and held for naught the said Order of December 3, and by said Order of December 6 denied Plaintiff's Motion for Deficiency Decree, and unfortunately there being no way dehors the record, of determining Judge Anderson's rationale for the holding, but it appearing that by vacating the order of December 3, 1963 he held that he did have jurisdiction, and due deliberations having been had, it is
'Adjudged, Ordered and Decreed
'That the Plaintiff's Petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby denied.'
On this appeal it is contended that the chancellor was in error in holding the motion for deficiency was filed too late; that there were no equities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mandell v. Fortenberry
...v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 551; Maudo, Inc. v. Stein, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 403; Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp., Fla.App.1963, 173 So.2d 738; Matlack v. Owen, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d The majority opinion begs the question of the rights of Petitioners as def......
-
Singleton v. Greymar Associates
...action in this case barred the subsequent action on the balance due on the note. Id. at 1134; see also Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp., 173 So.2d 738, 740-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ("Denial of an application for deficiency decree for jurisdictional reasons as distinguished from equitable gr......
-
Peterson v. Sutton, 69--266
...Jonas v. Bar-Jam Corp., Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 479; Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation, supra. See also Frumkes v. Mortgage Guarantee Corp., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 738; Frank v. Levine, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d Affirmed. ...
-
Romagnoli v. SR Acquisitions—Homestead, LLC, s. 3D16–386 & 3D16–387
...approval cases holding that an action at law for a deficiency judgment is subject to equitable defenses); Frumkes v. Mortg. Guarantee Corp. , 173 So.2d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ("equitable considerations which could have been urged in opposition to a proper and timely application for def......
-
Chapter 20-3 Calculation of Deficiency Amounts
...cases holding that an action at law for a deficiency judgment is subject to equitable defenses); Frumkes v. The Mortg. Guarantee Corp., 173 So. 2d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ("equitable considerations which could have been urged in opposition to a proper and timely application for deficien......
-
Chapter 19-3 Calculation of Deficiency Amounts
...cases holding that an action at law for a deficiency judgment is subject to equitable defenses); Frumkes v. The Mortg. Guarantee Corp., 173 So. 2d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ("equitable considerations which could have been urged in opposition to a proper and timely application for deficien......