White v. Kaplan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. Kaplan

449 So. 2d 954, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12976

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1273

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 449 So. 2d 954 (White v. Kaplan) 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

White v. Kaplan, 449 So. 2d 954, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12976 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Notwithstanding the appellants’ not un-cogent contention that the law should be otherwise, based on the historical analysis in Watson, Deficiency Suits After Foreclosure: A Matter of Timing, 56 Fla.B.J. 47, 48-50 (1982), it is firmly established that the chancellor’s previous denial of a deficiency judgment specifically sought after foreclosure, which was affirmed in White [955]*955v. Kaplan, 418 So.2d 1302 (Pla. 3d DCA 1982) (per curiam), precludes the maintenance of the present action “at law” on the note to recover for the same debt. Crawford v. Woodward, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311 (1939); Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300, 153 So. 843 (1934); Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42, 146 So. 641 (1933); see Scheneman v. Barnett, 53 So.2d 641 (Fla.1951), and cases cited. The summary-judgment rendered below in the defendant’s favor is therefore

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Notwithstanding the appellants’ not un-cogent contention that the law should be otherwise, based on the historical analysis in Watson, Deficiency Suits After Foreclosure: A Matter of Timing, 56 Fla.B.J. 47, 48-50 (1982), it is firmly established that the chancellor’s previous denial of a deficiency judgment specifically sought after foreclosure, which was affirmed in White [955]*955v. Kaplan, 418 So.2d 1302 (Pla. 3d DCA 1982) (per curiam), precludes the maintenance of the present action “at law” on the note to recover for the same debt. Crawford v. Woodward, 140 Fla. 38, 191 So. 311 (1939); Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. Reed, 114 Fla. 300, 153 So. 843 (1934); Provost v. Swinson, 109 Fla. 42, 146 So. 641 (1933); see Scheneman v. Barnett, 53 So.2d 641 (Fla.1951), and cases cited. The summary-judgment rendered below in the defendant’s favor is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 So. 2d 954, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-kaplan-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack