HomeMy WebLinkAbout2196 .
, ~ . ~
. ;
cairt would e~ter u final judgment ~f forectosure upon notice and proc~f
of such default.
Appellant remained in possession under the foregoiug order of
reinstatement and paid the monies due for a period of approximately
nine months~ when she again defaulted, After appellant had been in
default for several months~ appellees filed a petition asking the court
to proceed w ~th the fox~eclosu re pursuant to its prev ious order, After
notice to appellant, the cc~urt tc~ok testimony and then entered the ~
final judgment of foreclosure dated C'-ctober 24~ 1974,
Appellant poses three points for our consideration on this
appeai. The first two point~~ in sum, a~Eert that appellees Adams and
Hoke did not have good titl~ to the property in question (since H& A
Rentals, Inc, ,[appellees` grantorj, v~~as a dissolved corporation when
.
it was named as grantee in a conveyance of the property) and therefore
were not entitled to a finat judgment of foreclosure because they were
~
~ not ready, w ilt tng, and a~ite to perform the contract. The third point
i
F
~ charges the trial court v~ ith error in requiring appellaiyt to ciismiss her
~ counterclaim as a condition of the interlocutory order of Nay 14, 1973.
~
~ We woutd dispc~e of appellant's third point by point€ng out that
a
~ after a trial on t~e merits thc, trial judge sought to re~o[ve the is~ues
on what he ~ons ider~.•d to be an equ itable bas is. He gave appellant the
election to stand her ground and proceed with the case or ta have the
contract reinstated on condition she make rhe delinquent payments
and dis miss her countercla im, After consultation w ith her lawyer
- appellant elected to have the contract reinstated. Having consented to
the entry of the order and having accepted its benefits~ knowir~g all the
facts and circumstances, appellant may not now que~tion its validity.
See, e, g. ~ In re Fredcrts, Incorpc~rated~ Fla. App, 1958, 101 So. 2d 49. ~
3.
. aoo~244 ~c~-2~.96
- ~ c - - ~
- _