W. V. KNOTT, STATE TREASURER, APPELLANT,
v.
D. F. FUQUAY AND C. M. ROGERS, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to overrule a plea in abatement regarding venue. The court found that the supplemental bill improperly introduced a new, distinct justiciable matter unrelated to the original foreclosure, and thus the trustee's plea to the venue should have been sustained.
No, a supplemental bill is not a proper vehicle for introducing a new, distinct justiciable matter that is not necessary to maintain the original foreclosure proceedings and was known at the time of the original filing.
“The so-called "supplemental bill" seeks to present a new justiciable matter that is wholly distinct from and not necessary to maintain the foreclosure proceedings, and which must have been known to exist when the original bill was filed. ' Such matter is not a proper subject of a supplemental bill.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for why the supplemental bill was improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a mortgage foreclosure case, after a final decree and order of sale but before the sale occurred, the complainants filed a supplemental bill. This …
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.
Per Curiam.
In a mortgage foreclosure, after final decree and an order of sale, but before sale, complainants sought by supplemental bill to impress a lien upon securities of the mortgagor held by a trustee residing in another county, which securities it is alleged may be made subject to the payment of an anticipated deficiency decree in the foreclosure proceedings. The trustee, a resident of another county, who was first made a defendant in the supplemental bill, filed a plea in abatement to the venue, which was overruled and the said defendant trustee appealed. The so-called “supplemental bill” seeks to present a new justiciable matter that is wholly distinct from and not necessary to maintain the foreclosure proceedings, and which must have been known to exist when the original bill was filed. ' Such matter is not a proper subject of a supplemental bill. See 10 R. C. L. 502. Even though the attempted use of a supplemental bill was not challenged by demurrer or otherwise, its improper use should not be permitted by the courts where the established rules of procedure under the laws of the State are violated. This case is quite unlike Crump v. Perkins, 18 Fla. 353.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the so-called supplemental bill.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.