I. W. PECK AND MARY S. PECK, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLAUDIS PHILLIPS, TRADING AS PHILLIPS & SONS, APPELLEE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a foreclosure decree, finding that a decree pro confesso was improperly entered after a material amendment to the bill of complaint. The court also noted issues with the appointment of a receiver and the lack of reporting of crop sale proceeds.
No, the decree pro confesso should not have been entered by the Clerk until the December Rule Day because the bill was materially amended. The final decree is reversed and remanded for appropriate proceedings.
“As the bill was amended in material respects on October 12, the decree pro confesso should not have been entered by the Clerk until the December Rule Day.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal regarding the improper entry of the decree pro confesso.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA foreclosure suit was filed, and the bill of complaint was materially amended. Process was served, and a decree pro confesso was entered by the Clerk…
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 Decree Pro Confesso cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This appeal is from a final decree in a foreclosure proceeding covering a citrus fruit grove. The bill of complaint was filed July 25, 1912, and on October-12, 1912, by leave of court a material amendment to the bill of complaint was filed. Service of process was made on September 11, 1912, and a decree pro confesso, for fail ure to plead, answer or demur, was entered by the Clerk on November 4, 1912. The court appointed the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the county receiver of the growing crops, with power to sell; and authorized the Clerk to approve his own bond as such receiver. The court refused to open up the decree pro confesso, and rendered a final decree and also subsequent decrees in the enforcement of the decree of forclosure including a large deficiency decree, apparently without requiring the proceeds of the sale of crops by the receiver to be reported and credited on the indebtedness. The property was bought in by the mortgagee for about a third of the mortgage indebtedness. As the bill was amended in material respects on October 12, the decree pro confesso should not have been entered by the Clerk until the December Rule Day. See 5 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 980; 1 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 490. Under these circumstahces the final decree is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.