ONA M. MOORE, ET VIR.,
v.
A. F. SOUTHWELL, ET UX.
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 that allowed a judgment from Colorado to be used as a counterclaim in a Florida foreclosure proceeding. The court found no privity between the parties regarding the Colorado judgment.
No, the Colorado judgment against Coombs cannot be used as a counterclaim against the Moores in the Florida foreclosure proceedings because there is no privity between Coombs and the Moores concerning that judgment.
“If in taking from Coombs an assignment of the notes and mortgage on lands in Florida after the first note had matured for payment, the rights of the Moores were subject to equities of the Southwells' against Coombs in the premises, the Southwells cannot have the judgment in tort against Coombs rendered in another State, used as a counter claim against the Moores in the foreclosure proceedings', the judgment being against Coombs and not [*701] against the Moores, there being no privity between Coombs and the Moores as to the judgment against Coombs.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, highlighting the lack of privity.
Southwell traded land in Florida for land in Colorado from Coombs. Southwell later obtained a judgment against Coombs in Colorado for fraud. Coombs as…
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 Privity Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that Louie Coombs took from Southwell and wife notes and purchase money mortgage upon conveying lands in Florida in exchange for land in Colorado. Later Southwell obtained a judgment against Coombs' in Colorado for fraud in the land exchange transaction. After the first note matured for payment, Coombs assigned the notes and mortgage to Ona M. Moore who, joined by her husband, brought foreclosure proceedings against Southwell and his wife. The latter secured a reduction in the forclosure decree for the amount of the judgment against Coombs obtained in the State of Colorado by Southwell for fraud by Coombs in the land exchange transaction. If in taking from Coombs an assignment of the notes and mortgage on lands in Florida after the first note had matured for payment, the rights of the Moores were subject to equities of the Southwells' against Coombs in the premises, the Southwells cannot have the judgment in tort against Coombs rendered in another State, used as a counter claim against the Moores in the foreclosure proceedings', the judgment being against Coombs and not *701against the Moores, there being no privity between Coombs and the Moores as to the judgment against Coombs.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.