C. E. AND BETTY GOSWICK, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL MITTELMAN AND ROSE MITTELMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
C. E. AND BETTY GOSWICK, APPELLANTS,
SAMUEL MITTELMAN AND ROSE MITTELMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
177 So. 2d 253
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
The appellant urges the insufficiency of the proof upon the entry of a summary final *254decree of foreclosure. An examination of the record reveals that the appellant, as defendant, filed no answer other than a general denial and offered no affidavit or other type of proof at the hearing on the motion. The plaintiff, appellee, offered sworn testimony sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Under these circumstances, the chancellor properly entered the summary decree appealed. See Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 715; Kelly v. Patek, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 520.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soper v. Stine, 184 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…ctual issues, [*895] the non-moving party must make a showing, aside from his pleadings, that a fact issue can be generated, unless the undisputed facts would not entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Goswick v. Mittelman, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 253; Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, Fla.1965, 175 So. 2d 780; Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 715; and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.36, 30 F.S.A. Here we have only the exhibits, introduced by the plaintiffs themselves, and they reveal no issue of whet…
Authorities Cited
- Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Kelly v. Patek, 172 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Benitez v. State, 172 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)