WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
ZUCKERMAN-VERNON CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, HAROLD VERNON, HOWARD COOPER, BARRY HOROWITZ, IRWIN ZUCKERMAN, MILDRED ZUCKERMAN, MELVIN ZUCKERMAN, AUDREY HOROWITZ, EILEEN ZUCKERMAN, ARTHUR SIEGEL, ELAINE SIEGEL, MURRAY ZELIKOFF, AND CONTINENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny a deficiency judgment. The trial court had excluded evidence related to the property's value, leading to a directed verdict for the appellees.
No, the trial court did not err in excluding the challenged evidence. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion in these evidentiary rulings.
[1] A trial court may exclude testimony of a corporate owner's officer concerning property value in a deficiency judgment action.
[2] Evidence of the price at which property was resold may be excluded in a deficiency judgment action.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings excluding testimony of a corporate owner’s officer concerning the value of the property, Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); excluding evidence of the price at which the property was resold, cf. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority v. Cariddi, 164 N.J.Super. 127, 395 A. 2d 895 (1978) (in condemnation proceeding, valuation expert permitted to cite sales price both to explain valuation process and as basis for his opinion, but not as evidence of price paid); striking the testimony of appellant’s appraiser, cf. Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Berglund-Cherne Co., 193 Colo. 562, 568 P. 2d 478 (1977) (in eminent domain proceeding, expert witness may render an opinion, based on hearsay, concerning income derived from a lease; but testimony may not be used as proof of property’s value); see generally Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1967) (expert’s opinion must be based on facts either in evidence or within his knowledge); and excluding evidence of price paid at foreclosure sale, see section 45.031(7), Florida Statutes (1979); cf. R. K. Cooper Construction Co. v. Fulton, 216 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1968) (bid price not conclusive as to value of property in subsequent action at law on note); Fara Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (evidence not necessarily conclusive with regard to value of property sold on application for deficiency decree), we affirm.”
This quote summarizes the trial court's evidentiary rulings that the appellate court reviewed and found to be without error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington Federal sought a deficiency judgment after foreclosing on a mortgage, aiming to recover the difference between the foreclosure judgment and…
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 Deficiency Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellant sought a deficiency judgment in connection with the foreclosure of a mortgage it held on an apartment complex. Appellant requested a sum equal to the difference between the foreclosure judgment and the fair market value of the property. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellees, who included makers and guarantors of the notes and mortgage, and others who had assumed the mortgage.
Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings excluding testimony of a corporate owner’s officer concerning the value of the property, Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); excluding evidence of the price at which the property was resold, cf. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority v. Cariddi, 164 N.J.Super. 127, 395 A. 2d 895 (1978) (in condemnation proceeding, valuation expert permitted to cite sales price both to explain valuation process and as basis for his opinion, but not as evidence of price paid); striking the testimony of appellant’s appraiser, cf. Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Berglund-Cherne Co., 193 Colo. 562, 568 P. 2d 478 (1977) (in eminent domain proceeding, expert witness may render an opinion, based on hearsay, concerning income derived from a lease; but testimony may not be used as proof of property’s value); see generally Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1967) (expert’s opinion must be based on facts either in evidence or within his knowledge); and excluding evi dence of price paid at foreclosure sale, see section 45.031(7), Florida Statutes (1979); cf. R. K. Cooper Construction Co. v. Fulton, 216 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1968) (bid price not conclusive as to value of property in subsequent action at law on note); Fara Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (evidence not necessarily conclusive with regard to value of property sold on application for deficiency decree), we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Postal Sav. Ass'n v. Nagelbush, 553 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…(Fla.1925); Valcin v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vanguard Construction Co. v. Lewis State Bank, 348 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp., 414 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 424 So. 2d 764 (Fla.1982); Larsen v. Allocca, 187 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) cert. denied, 195 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1966); Matlack v. Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).…
Authorities Cited
- Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
- Harbond, Inc. v. Van Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- R. K. Cooper Constr. Co. v. Fulton, 216 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1968)
- Salvage & Surplus, Inc. v. Weintraub, 131 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Pardo v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fara Mfg. Co., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)