Judges: BROWN, J. —
Attorneys: Ernest F. Housholder, for Plaintiff in Error;
Dickinson Dickinson, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Jul. 29, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In this case deficiency decree was entered, together with confirmation of sale, on the 7th day of July, 1930, in a foreclosure suit. Execution issued on the deficiency decree on the 20th day of August, 1930. Execution was levied on certain lands described in the return of the Sheriff, which return was filed on October 6th, 1930. On the same date, October 6, 1930, the plaintiff herein, defendant in the foreclosure suit, filed his motion under the provisions of section 2829 R. G. S., 4516 C. G. L.
Summary: In this case deficiency decree was entered, together with confirmation of sale, on the 7th day of July, 1930, in a foreclosure suit. Execution issued on the deficiency decree on the 20th day of August, 1930. Execution was levied on certain lands described in the return of the Sheriff, which return was filed on October 6th, 1930. On the same date, October 6, 1930, the plaintiff herein, defendant in the foreclosure suit, filed his motion under the provisions of section 2829 R. G. S., 4516 C. G. L.,..
More
It appears from the order granting the deficiency decree, in connection with the confirmation of the Master's report of sale, that the deficiency decree was granted on motion, after notice to the defendants. As the attack here made on the deficiency decree is in the nature of a collateral attack. I concur in the affirmance. However, if the question had been presented on direct appeal, I am inclined to think I might have taken a different view, by reason of the principles laid down in Letchworth vs. Koonce, 99 Fla. 451, 127 So. 321, and the cases therein cited.
