HomeMy WebLinkAbout2928 ~ ~ ~
FIlEO AK9 ttECON~EO ~
ST. tUCtE COUNTY lA. ~
ROCER ~~ITRAS IN THB CIVIL llIVISION OF
CI.ERK CIRGtiIT ~OURT COUNTY COURT IN AND F~t
2~~~~A RfCORO Vf~+~~1E~ ' ~~T LUCIS COUNTY, FLORIDA
1 ~ t~ ~o s3 aH 7~
CASB NO. 74 493-SP-O1
JOSBPH R. LYNCH '~'~+~~~1
Plaintiff
vs
GBRAID B . ~ BETTY SMNBR
Defendant
O R D B R
At the time of the closing in a local Savings and Loan.Association _
between the plaintiff buyer and defendant seller, 1972 tax figures were used.
Since that time, there has been an increase in assessment~. 2he question
before the Court is whether or not this increase should be born by the defendant
seller.
In actuality, the seller is paying for their use of the property to the
time of closing. In this inatance, the 1972 tax statement would not actually
or in reality reflect the real tax statement as it was yet to come. Gen
erally the previous tax stateme~t is acceptably close. The larger tax
statement received for 1973 reflects a greater increase in taxes than usual.
While this Court feels that the defendant seller ie responaible to the
j plaintiff buyer for said increase, this Court in no way casts any aspersions
i
~ of charactor with either party. The question presented was an excellent
~ one. At the time of trial, the defendants expressed, because of sickness, an
~
~ interest in paying weekly or monthly. They are instructed to contact this
~ t
office for the signing of such an agreement for the balance of $83.52 plus
E
court costs in the amount of $19.50. • ~
I]ATSD this day of May, A.ll., 1974.
~
(
t
COUNZY JUDGE
~
~ . r.~::::;• - . -
. t~(%~,,/'i~'~: .
. ~ .~y ~ ~ ' -
_ J: ,~r i r~=` ~
_ rJ~7' - • ~:i • -
_ • - _ . ;~,'7~,:
•G~ `s- _ ~ .;~;:~r.~-'
- f.r~~?,,~
. ~'s.~~~
• , , • r , . • . .
~ • .~.~.Nl:l: . . .
F' ; i ~~7 PACE~~N~) -
~ ~ .rE _ : , _ _ -
~
- ~ - -