Case Name: George HELKER and Mary Helker, his wife, Appellants, v. Russell GOULDY and Mary Gouldy, his wife, Heritage Title Company, a Florida corporation, Riverside Bank, a Florida corporation, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-07-13
Citations: 177 So. 2d 264
Docket Number: No. 65-244
Parties: George HELKER and Mary Helker, his wife, Appellants, v. Russell GOULDY and Mary Gouldy, his wife, Heritage Title Company, a Florida corporation, Riverside Bank, a Florida corporation, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 177
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
George HELKER and Mary Helker, his wife, Appellants, v. Russell GOULDY and Mary Gouldy, his wife, Heritage Title Company, a Florida corporation, Riverside Bank, a Florida corporation, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.
No. 65-244.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
July 13, 1965.
Ungerleider & Segor, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Nestor Morales, Miami, for Gouldy.
Fogle & Fordham, Miami, for Heritage Title Co.
Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody, Mehrtens & Cole and Thomas S. Trantham, Jr., Miami, for Riverside Bank.
Mallory H. Horton and George N. Jahn, Miami, for Prudential Ins. Co. of America.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
SWANN, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting all motions to dismiss the complaint filed by the various appellees.
The complaint prayed, inter alia, for the rescission and cancellation of a subordination agreement; a decree establishing plaintiff's lien as a superior lien to that of any of the appellees; a personal judgment against one of the appellees, Heritage Title Company; an accounting; and for foreclosure of a mortgage given by the appel-lees, Gouldy, to the appellants.
We have carefully examined the pleadings and the briefs of the respective parties and conclude that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against any of the appellees except the Gouldys, and find that, as to them, it stated a valid cause of action for foreclosure of a purchase money mortgage.
The decision of the trial court is therefore reversed as to its order dismissing the complaint for the foreclosure of a purchase money mortgage against the Gouldys, and affirmed as to that portion of the order dismissing the complaint against the remaining parties.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded.