Case Name: C. E. and Betty GOSWICK, Appellants, v. Samuel MITTELMAN and Rose Mittelman, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-07-06
Citations: 177 So. 2d 253
Docket Number: No. 64-1040
Parties: C. E. and Betty GOSWICK, Appellants, v. Samuel MITTELMAN and Rose Mittelman, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 177
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.