From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Kaplan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 8, 1984
449 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1273.

May 8, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Dick C.P. Lantz, J.

Pallot, Poppell Goodman and Neil A. Shanzer, Miami, for appellants.

Neil B. Kaplan in pro per.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.


Notwithstanding the appellants' not uncogent 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 v. Kaplan, 418 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 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.


Summaries of

White v. Kaplan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 8, 1984
449 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

White v. Kaplan

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA TARTE WHITE AND WALLACE HAYES, APPELLANTS, v. NEIL B. KAPLAN…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 8, 1984

Citations

449 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Carson v. Gibson

There are occasions, however, where a party loses the right to proceed at law by litigating an issue in…