Lieberman v. Burley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lieberman v. Burley

100 So. 2d 88

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1958

DocketNo. 103

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 100 So. 2d 88 (Lieberman v. Burley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lieberman v. Burley, 100 So. 2d 88 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

KANNER, Chief Judge.

This suit was for the foreclosure of a mortgage against homestead property. There were no subscribing witnesses to the execution of the mortgage. The appellees asserted the defense that the mortgage was defective and insufficient to encumber the homestead property because there were no witnesses to the signatures of the mortgagors. There is no dispute as to the facts. The chancellor ruled that this defense was [89]*89complete as a bar against the foreclosure proceeding. The appeal is from that order.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the lack of two subscribing witnesses to the execution of the mortgage prevents its enforcement against the homestead property.

The question has been resolved. The party or parties making a mortgage on homestead property must sign it in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, and unless so executed the mortgage can not be enforced against the homestead in the absence of an estoppel. Estoppel is not here raised. See Perry v. Beckerman, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 860, 862; Article X, section 4, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A.; .and section 689.01, Florida Statutes, 1955, F.S.A.

The order of the chancellor is hereby .affirmed.

ALLEN, J., and SMITH, CULVER, A. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KANNER, Chief Judge.

This suit was for the foreclosure of a mortgage against homestead property. There were no subscribing witnesses to the execution of the mortgage. The appellees asserted the defense that the mortgage was defective and insufficient to encumber the homestead property because there were no witnesses to the signatures of the mortgagors. There is no dispute as to the facts. The chancellor ruled that this defense was [89]*89complete as a bar against the foreclosure proceeding. The appeal is from that order.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the lack of two subscribing witnesses to the execution of the mortgage prevents its enforcement against the homestead property.

The question has been resolved. The party or parties making a mortgage on homestead property must sign it in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, and unless so executed the mortgage can not be enforced against the homestead in the absence of an estoppel. Estoppel is not here raised. See Perry v. Beckerman, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 860, 862; Article X, section 4, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A.; .and section 689.01, Florida Statutes, 1955, F.S.A.

The order of the chancellor is hereby .affirmed.

ALLEN, J., and SMITH, CULVER, A. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-burley-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack