McCutchen v. Hillman

177 So. 2d 893, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4044
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 22, 1965·No. No. 65-259·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SWANN, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal to review an Order on Mandate entered by the trial court pursuant to an opinion of this court in a prior appeal. Hillman v. McCutchen, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 611. The facts are fully reported therein and it will serve no useful purpose to recite them here.

The trial court issued its Order on Mandate, requiring that the mortgaged property be sold unless the amounts it found to be due were paid. Petitioner challenges this order, claiming that she should have been permitted to present evidence on remand of the amounts due on the mortgage. The amounts due on the mortgage were ■determined after a full and complete hearing of the cause, prior to the first appeal.

There are no defenses or issues of facts to be decided that could not have been determined at the original trial of the cause, if they had been properly raised.

It is well settled that a judgment is conclusive as to defenses which have, or might have been set up. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Harris, Fla.1961, 134 So.2d 785.

For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

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

McCutchen v. Hillman, 177 So. 2d 893, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4044 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

177 So. 2d 893 (McCutchen v. Hillman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reynolds v. Wood
563 So. 2d 212 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Donner v. Donner
302 So. 2d 452 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Rosen v. Hunter
227 So. 2d 689 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)