THE JACKSONVILLE LOAN AND INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL MERCANTILE REALTY AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
Jacksonville Loan and Insurance Company appealed a foreclosure decree that postponed a deficiency judgment and referred the case to a special master to determine the property's value. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the price bid at a confirmed foreclosure sale is the conclusive measure of property value between the parties, and that a judge doubting adequacy of the sale price should order a resale rather than refer the matter to a master.
The price bid at a foreclosure sale, when duly confirmed by the court, is the conclusive test of property value between the parties. A judge who believes the sale price was inadequate should order a resale rather than refer the matter to a master to establish a different valuation.
“as between parties to the suit the sum for which the mortgaged premises were sold must, so long as the sale stands, be taken as the conclusive test of their value.”
Establishes the core legal principle that confirmed sale price is conclusive valuation between parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacksonville Loan and Insurance Company held two mortgages on property. John S. Flanagan purchased the property subject to the mortgages and agreed to…
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 Foreclosure Sale Confirmation cases and more on FLexlaw
Bullock, Circuit Judge.
— Complainant below was the purchaser at foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property described' in two mortgages. The bill alleges that after the making and record of the mortgages that one John S. Flanagan purchased the mortgaged premises, subject to, and agreed to pay, said mortgages. Thereafter defendant purchased from Flanagan the mortgaged premises subject to and “assumed and agreed to pay” said two mortgages. A final decree of foreclosure and sale was had at which appellant purchased the mortgaged property. The special master made a report of the sale, and the Circuit Judge, on the 15th day of March, 1918, made an order wherein he said: “It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the sale as made by said special master be, and the same is.hereby confirmed; that this cause is referred to the said special master of this court to take testimony and ascertain and report with all diligence the reasonable value of said mortgaged property at the time of the sale thereof by him. That so much of said motion as pertains to a deficiency decree be postponed until the filing of the said master’s report.” From this order appellant, complainant below, prosecuted its appeal to this court and assigned as error: (1st) The “refusing to enter a deficiency decree against the defendant;” (2nd) “Referring this cause to a special master to take testimony and ascertain and report the value of the said mortgaged property at the time of the sale thereof;” and (3rd) “Refusing the application of the complainant for a deficiency decree in this cause.”
There is no order denying the application for a deficiency. The order appealed from simply postponed the application.
In the case of Etter v. State Bank of Florida, 76 Fla. 203, 79 South. Rep. 724, decided August 9th, 191.8, this court held that “as between parties to the siut the sum for which the mortgaged premises were sold must, so long as the sale stands, be taken as the conclusive test of their value.” The price bid at the foreclosure sale, especially when such sale is duly confirmed by the judge, is, as between the parties, the conclusive test of the value of the property sold. If the judge is of the opinion that the amount bid at the sale was inadequate, and inequitably less than the real value of the property, he should not confirm such sale, but should order a resale of the property. That feature of the decree referring the cause to a master to take testimony as to the real value of the property sold is er-re neous, and should be reversed.
Per Curiam.
— The record in-this cause having been considered by the court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter ——Acts of 1919, adopted by the couit as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the decree herein appealed from in so far as it refers the cause to a master to take testimony and the value of the poperty sold, be and the same is hereby reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Prine, 101 Fla. 967 (Fla. 1931)…e value of the mortgaged land at the time of the foreclosure sale, which evidence was taken in this case subsequent to the confirmation of said sale (See Etter v. State Bank, 76 Fla. 203, 79 So. 724; Jacksonville Loan Co. v. National Mercantile Co., 77 Fla. 825, 82 So. 292), other equitable considerations nevertheless appear in the record which support the chancellor’s action in denying a deficiency decree. It" strikingly appears that the mortgagee-complainant bought in at the foreclosure sale for $5,000.…
-
Younghusband v. Fort Pierce Bank & Tr. Co., 100 Fla. 1088 (Fla. 1930)…upra, that: “As between the parties to the suit, the sum for which the mortgaged premises were sold must, so long as the sale stands, be taken as the conclusive test of their value.” Jacksonville Loan & Ins. Co. v. National Merc. Realty & Imp. Co.,'77 Fla. 825, 82 So. R. 292. It is our view that the amount for which the property sold may not be binding upon an indorser who was not a party to the suit any more than a decree confirming a sale may irrevocably fix the reasonable value of the land sold as aga…
-
The Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moscovitz, 119 Fla. 708 (Fla. 1935)…bid at the sale was inadequate and inequitably less than the real value of the property, he should not confirm such sale, but order a resale of the property. Jacksonville Loan and Insurance Company v. National Mercantile, Realty and Improvement Co., 77 Fla. 825, 82 So. 292; Etter v. State Bank of Fla., 76 Fla. 203, 79 So. 724; Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure, Section 963, 3 Jones on Mortgage, Section 2206, page 719; Howard v. McNaught, 9 Wash. 255, 37 Pac. 455; Harsen v. Day, 99 Ore. 387, 195 Pac. 344; Secti…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Etter v. State Bank of Fla., 76 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1918)