(Download) "M. H. Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation" by First District. District Court of Appeal of Florida " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: M. H. Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corporation
- Author : First District. District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Release Date : January 25, 1962
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Defendant, Fish Carburetor Corporation, executed a note in favor of plaintiffs, Kurkjian, et al., evidencing its indebtedness to them in the principal sum of $14,000, and secured payment of same by a mortgage on certain real property owned by defendant. Defendant defaulted in the performance of the terms of the note and mortgage, and plaintiffs brought this action to foreclose. When defendant failed to file any defenses, a decree pro confesso was properly entered against it upon motion of plaintiffs. Subsequently, the chancellor entered a summary final decree of foreclosure, finding therein that defendant was indebted to plaintiffs in the total sum of $15,099.81. Upon defendants failure to forthwith pay said sum, the chancellor directed the Clerk of the Circuit Court to sell the mortgaged property pursuant to the provisions of ? 702.02(5), F.S.1959, F.S.A. The mortgaged property was sold by the clerk at public sale to plaintiffs for the sum of $10,000; no objections to the sale were made by defendant; and the clerk issued certificate of title to plaintiffs. After receiving the certificate of title, plaintiffs moved that a deficiency decree be entered against defendant in the sum of $5,120.27, this being the difference between the amount found due by defendant in the final decree and the sale price of the property. The chancellor directed that notice be given to defendant prior to hearing plaintiffs motion for deficiency decree. Defendant filed an unverified pleading entitled "Objections to Entry of Deficiency Decree and Motion to Set Aside Foreclosure Sale," the gist of such pleading containing affirmative allegations that plaintiffs were the only bidders at the sale and that the sale price was grossly inadequate. Plaintiffs then moved to strike defendants pleading and the court took said motion under advisement. Several months later and prior to disposition of plaintiffs motion to strike, defendant filed another unverified pleading entitled "Additional Objections to Entry of a Deficiency Decree" in which it affirmatively alleged that plaintiffs agreed not to seek a deficiency decree. Three days later, the chancellor entered an order denying the deficiency decree and denying the motion to strike. Material points on this interlocutory appeal are: