Legal Opinion
Scheneman v. Barnett
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided April 6, 1951PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
53 So.2d 641 (1951)
SCHENEMAN
v.
BARNETT et ux.
Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.
April 6, 1951.
Walter J. Migoski, Miami, for appellant.
Benjamin E. Carey, Miami, for appellees.
2Per curiam
This appeal is from that portion of an order entered in a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, denying plaintiff a deficiency decree for the amount remaining due and owing to him after foreclosure sale.
Under the provisions of Section 702.06, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., the entry of a deficiency decree "for any portion of a deficiency, should one exist, shall be within the sound judicial discretion of the court". This…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Carlson v. BeckerSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
- Atlantic Shores Corp. v. ZetterlundSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Taylor, Jr. v. PrineSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Reed v. Miami Studio Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by19 opinions
- Capital Bank v. NeedleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- Foley Lumber Co. v. KoesterSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
- Tilton v. HortonSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
- Kissling v. McCarthyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.