Case ID: fla_61/html/0588-01.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

James R. Davis and Leslie V. Davis, his wife, Appellants, v. John H. Simon, Appellee.
    
    1. An appeal taken only from a decree confirming a sale of property in a foreclosure suit, and awarding a deficiency decree, does not authorize a review of the final decree settling the equities of the case.
    2. In a foreclosure proceeding where it appears that the defendant’s title to the mortgaged property was of little if any market value, an order confirming a sale for ten dollars is not necessarily unjust or erroneous.
    3. Where the amount of the deficiency decree is in accordance with the adjudication in the final decree, and there is no appeal from the final decree, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the final decree is not open for review.
    This case was decided by Division A.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
    The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      J. W. Brady, for Appellants.;
    
      Wilson & Boswell, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam

A final decree was rendered in a foreclosure proceeding adjudicating the amount of the indebtedness and ordering a sale of the property. The property sold for a nominal amount; the sale was confirmed and a deficiency decree rendered. An appeal was taken only from the order confirming the sale and awarding a deficiency decree. This appeal does not authorize a review of the final decree. It appears that the defendant’s title to the mortgage property was oí little, if any market value, therefore the order confirming its sale for ten dollars is not shown to be unjust or erroneous. The amount of the deficiency decree resulted mathematically from the indebtedness adjudged in the final decree which is not appealed from. This being so- the court cannot consider the sole contention that the amount of the indebtedness decree is not in accordance with the evidence.

The decree is affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, EEockek and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.