Legal Opinion

Cameo Hotel & Apartments, Ltd. v. Morris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 11, 1989No. 89-43PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

In considering objections to a- foreclosure sale the “ ‘chancellor has a large discretion which will only be interfered with by the appellate court in a clear case of injustice.’ ” Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 131 Fla. 752, 756, 180 So. 382, 384 (1938); accord Maule Indus. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So.2d 307, 311 (Fla.1956). Although appellants complain of the procedures followed at the foreclosure sale, such confusion as may have existed was the proximate result of a chain of events set in motion by appellants themselves. They will not now be heard to complain. See…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Maule Industries v. Seminole Rock and Sand CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1956
  2. Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
  3. Malkus v. GainesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  2. EBS Partners LLC v. BlackburnDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API