MAUD BAKER
v.
TOWN OF DUNNELLON
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 affirmed a foreclosure decree on a paving assessment lien but conditioned the affirmance on the appellee's remittitur of excessive interest. The court found the decree substantially correct but for the erroneous inclusion of interest from an earlier date than legally permissible.
The decree is affirmed on the condition that the appellee agrees to a remittitur of the excessive interest included. If the remittitur is not entered, the decree will be reversed.
“this Court has carefully reviewed the briefs and record in the case and finds that the decree below is' in substantial accord with the law and the facts adduced, and that no harmful or reversible error has been committed.”
Establishes the court's initial finding that the decree was largely correct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Dunnellon foreclosed a paving assessment lien against Maud Baker's property under a 1923 Act. The trial court entered a final decree of fo…
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.
This is an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure of a paving assessment lien- entered against appellant’s property under Chapter 9298, Acts 1923, by the Town of Dunnellon,' Florida. This Court has carefully reviewed the briefs and record in the case and finds that the decree below is' in substantial accord with the law and the facts adduced, and that no harmful or reversible error has been committed. It appearing, however, that there is included in the decree an excessive amount of interest, to-wit: interest from January 19, 1927, instead of - from April 1, 1928, which erroneous inclusion appellee in its brief confesses should be eliminated and offers to- eliminate, it is ordered that one-half of the costs of this, appeal be taxed against appellee-and-that the decree appealed be affirmed on condition that appellee enter its remittitur of the aforesaid unlawfully included amount of interest, within 30 days after filing of the mandate in the court below, otherwise the decree to stand reversed for further appropriate proceedings.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell,-Brown and Bft ford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town OF Monticello v. Finlayson, 156 Fla. 568 (Fla. 1945)…mentioned in the case as reported, as the ease went off on another point. We will take counsels’ word for that, as they are honorable and eminent members of the bar of this Court. While we have recognized, in the case of Baker v. Town of Dunnellon, 117 Fla. 324, 158 So. 105, that interest could be collected or assessments made under this statute, the opinion in that case dealt with the reduction of excessive interest erroneously allowed by the decree appealed from due to a factual error; no constitutional…