Case ID: so2d_177/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. E. and Betty GOSWICK, Appellants, v. Samuel MITTELMAN and Rose Mittelman, his wife, Appellees.
    No. 64-1040.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    July 6, 1965.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1965.
    George M. Heller, Miami, for appellants.
    Spieler & Tendrich, Miami, for appel-lees.
    Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant urges the insufficiency of the proof upon the entry of a summary final decree 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.