Legal Opinion

White v. Kaplan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 8, 1984No. 83-1273PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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 *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.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scheneman v. BarnettSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
  2. Belle Mead Dev. Corp. v. ReedSupreme Court of Florida · 1934
  3. Provost v. SwinsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
  4. Crawford v. WoodwardSupreme Court of Florida · 1939

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carson v. GibsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  2. Citicorp Savings v. BraceCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API