WILLIAM I. PHILLIPS AND ESTELLE I. PHILLIPS
v.
ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION)
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 mortgage foreclosure decree, rejecting appellants' claims of duress, improper execution, and fraud in the mortgage transaction. The court held that by consenting to the final decree through counsel, the mortgagors waived all defenses and admitted the facts supporting the decree.
The final decree is affirmed. By consenting to the final decree through their counsel, the mortgagors waived all defenses and admitted the facts supporting the decree. Even if the decree had not been entered by consent, the evidence fails to establish grounds for reversal on any of the alleged defects.
“The rule is general and is approved by this Court that any defenses in behalf of either party are waived by stipulation and consent for a final decree.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that consent to a final decree waives all defenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Phillips executed a mortgage to Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company to secure a loan. When the initial loan matured, the parties extended …
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 Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from various and sundry decrees entered in a mortgage foreclosure suit, including a decree overruling a motion to file a bill of review after the final decree of foreclosure and sale.
*180It is contended that the judgment below should be reversed because the mortgage foreclosed was executed under duress, that the mortgagors never appeared before the notary public or witnesses to execute or acknowledge the making of the mortgage, that the special master’s sale was advertised for February 5 and was' held February 4, and that the final decree was acquired by misrepresentation and fraud.
The record discloses that appellants, who were defendants below, were represented by able counsel and that every possible defense was entered in their behalf, they do not deny getting the money the mortgage was given to secure, their notes were extended and a new contract made when the loan matured under the first contract, and no part of the principal has been returned. The final decree was by consent of counsel for both parties and was approved in good faith by them and the chancellor. The petition for bill of review and this appeal is an attempt on the part of appellants to relitigate the cause by new counsel.
The rule is general and is approved by this Court that any defenses in behalf of either party are waived by stipulation and consent for a final decree. If the defendant assents to a decree by its solicitor it is equivalent to a finding of fact that the solicitor was authorized to act as he did and it binds the court on appeal so far as the question is one of fact. It is also an admission that the facts existed on which the decree rests. Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289, 25 L. Ed. 932; Hefferman v. Burt, 7 Iowa 320, 71 Am. Dec. 445; Dunman v. Hartwell, 9 Tex. 495, 60 A. M. Dec. 176; 25 R. C. L. 1098.
We have examined the record and even if the final decree had not been entered by consent of counsel there is a failure to show ground for reversal. The evidence supporting the *181charge of duress fails completely to meet the test required of such evidence. 5 R. C. L. 807, and cases cited. The notary’s certificate is regular on its face and the attempt to overthrow it is concluded by Harold v. Hardin, 95 Fla. 889, 116 So. 863; see also Jones on Mortgages, Vol 1, Section 618.
As to charges of fraud it is shown that these were many and frequent and were all examined by the chancellor who ruled against them. We find no reason whatever to reverse him on this or any other assignment.
The judgment below is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Miami, 256 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…appeal, as appellant has contended. Next, we consider the stipulation which was to the effect that the court could enter a judgment against Travelers if a judgment was entered against the prime contractor. In Phillips v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 124 Fla. 179, 168 So. 34, 35, the court explained: “The rule is general and is approved by this court, that any defenses in behalf of either party are waived by stipulation and consent for final decree. If the defendant assents to a decree by its solicitor, it…
-
O'Malley v. McMULLEN, 294 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ordering that the sale be set aside and directing a new sale. Accordingly, the Order Invalidating Clerk’s Sale and Vacating Final Judgment is affirmed. McNULTY, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . See Phillips v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1936, 124 Fla. 179, 168 So. 34; 47 Am. Jur.2d, Judgments § 1085. . Fla.Stat., § 64.071, F.S.A. . Stewart v. Hunter, 1913, 65 Fla. 325, 61 So. 623. . See Smith v. One Super Wild Cat Console Mach. 1232, 973P, 1971, 6 Or.App. 482, 488 P. 2d 847; Orban v. Stelle, 1940,…
-
Abady & Sultan, Inc. v. Ronson Corp., 99 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed, on the authority of Phillips v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 124 Fla. 179, 168 So. 34, and Pasco Holding Co. v. Wells, 126 Fla. 339, 171 So. 674. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1879)
- Farleigh M. Herald and A. M. Herald v. Hardin, 95 Fla. 889 (Fla. 1928)