R. N. DURRANCE, ET AL.,
v.
GULF LIFE INSURANCE CO.
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.
A mortgage foreclosure case where the lender sought to recover on promissory notes after a deficiency judgment was denied in the initial chancery proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to sustain demurrers to the defendants' res adjudicata pleas, holding that the prior denial of the deficiency judgment barred the subsequent lawsuit on the underlying notes.
The Court held that the defendants' pleas of res adjudicata are valid and bar the plaintiff's action. The prior chancery decree denying the deficiency judgment application is a final adjudication that prevents relitigation of the same claim through a subsequent suit on the promissory notes.
“In these pleas they relied for a complete defense to the present cause of action sued on, upon the effect of the adjudication made in the chancery decree of the Circuit Court of Highlands County, in which decree the Circuit Court, in finally closing the foreclosure case by confirming the foreclosure sale, had ordered, adjudged and decreed that complainant's 'application' for a deficiency judgment against the defendants in that case be denied.”
Establishes the basis of the defendants' res adjudicata defense—the prior denial of the deficiency judgment in the foreclosure proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf Life Insurance Co. foreclosed on a mortgage against Durrance and others. In the foreclosure proceeding, the Circuit Court of Highlands County den…
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 Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit at law on certain promissory notes as to which a mortgage had been foreclosed against the same defendants and a deficiency decree against them afterward applied for and denied in the chancery proceeding. When sued in the present action, the plaintiffs in error, as defendants below, filed certain pleas of res ad judicata. 'In these pleas they relied for a complete defense to the present cause of action sued on, upon the effect of the adjudication made in the chancery decree of the Circuit Court of Highlands County, in which decree the Circuit Court, in finally closing the foreclosure case by confirming the foreclosure sale, had ordered, adjudged and decreed that complainant’s “application” for a deficiency judgment against the defendants in that case be denied.
The trial Judge in this case in the Court below, sustained demurrers to the defendants’ pleas of res adjudícala, apparently on the authority of the case of Gober v. Braddock, 100 Fla. 1406, 131 Sou. Rep. 407. The Gober-Braddock case was decided about the time an earlier order overruling demurrers to the defendants’ pleas of res adjudícala had been entered. For this reason a later order sustaining plaintiffs’ demurrers to the defendants’ amended pleas was on rehearing granted, the reason being the supposed effect of the Gober v. Braddock opinion of this Court.
The final judgment herein was entered in this cause on July 8, 1931. Since the date of the rendition of such judgment, two decisions of this Court have been announced *868and published which we deem controlling in support of the validity of the defendants’ amended pleas of res adjudicata to which demurrers of plaintiff were sustained by the court below. See Woodward v. Dishong, 102 Fla. 347, 135 Sou. Rep. 804; Atlantic Shores Corp. v. Zetterlund, 103 Fla. 761, 138 Sou. Rep. 50.
On the authority of the two cases last cited, the judgment herein must be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrrule the demurrers and motions addressed to the amended pleas of res adjudicata filed February 2, 1931, and have such further proceedings as may be according to law.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE City OF Hollywood v. Davis, 154 Fla. 785 (Fla. 1944)…rule as enunciated by McQuillan, supra, has been recognized and approved by the Supreme Court of Florida in many cases. The interested property owner is constitutionally entitled to but one notice. See Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 111 Fla. 844, 149 So. 806, 292 U. S. 106, 54 S. Ct. 593, 78 L. Ed. 1155, reh. den. 292 U. S. 604, 54 S. Ct. 712, 78 L. Ed. 1466; Escott v. City of Miami, 107 Fla. 273, 144 . So. 397; Abell v. Boynton, 95 Fla. 984, 117 So. 507; Anderson v. Ocala, 67 Fla. 204, 64 So. 775, 52 L…
-
Utley v. ST. Petersburg, 292 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1934)…he immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, and further that through laches and acquiescence as well as through a failure to take advantage of other statutory remedies, the appellants were “ estopped ” from maintaining the suit. 111 Fla. 844; 149 So. 806. Upon an appeal to this court the question of jurisdiction was postponed to the hearing on the merits. The appellants contend that the special assessment is invalid under the Constitution of the United States for the reason that the resolution voti…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Shores Corp. v. Olof Zetterlund and Jeannette Zetterlund, 103 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1931)
- Gober v. Braddock, 100 Fla. 1406 (Fla. 1930)
- Woodward v. Dishong, 102 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1931)