Penn-Mar-Florida Corp. v. Deis

160 So. 191, 118 Fla. 766, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1773
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 15, 1935·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In foreclosure proceedings it appears that when the complainant took an assignment of the mortgage he had or reasonably should have had notice or knowledge from records, occupancy of the lots and other circumstances,, that Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Block B of Orange Crest Subdivision, being a subdivision of Lots 4 and 5 of Block 4, Section 23, Township 33 S., Range 28 E., Highlands County, Florida, which were included in the mortgage, were occupied and were involved in a controversy as to their release from the mortgage. As to such lots the decree for the complainant is reversed and in other respects the decree is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Penn-Mar-Florida Corp. v. Deis, 160 So. 191, 118 Fla. 766, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1773 (Fla. 1935).

160 So. 191 (Penn-Mar-Florida Corp. v. Deis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kremser v. Tonokaboni
356 So. 2d 1331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)