WILLIAM J. GOTTSCHAMER AND NANCY GOTTSCHAMER, APPELLANTS,
v.
AUGUST, THOMPSON, SHERR, CLARK & SHAFER, P.C., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
William and Nancy Gottschamer, as guarantors of a promissory note and mortgage, appealed the trial court's determination that their set-off from a foreclosure sale should be based on the appraised market value of the property ($186,500) rather than the amount bid at the foreclosure sale ($195,000). The court reversed, holding that when the foreclosure sale price exceeds fair market value, the sale price must be applied as the set-off.
The foreclosure sale price of $195,000 must be applied as the set-off, not the lower appraised market value of $186,500. The court held that the amount for which mortgaged property sells at a foreclosure sale is applied to the debt, and the deficiency judgment may not exceed the difference between the sale price and the indebtedness.
[1] A mortgagee may pursue remedies on a promissory note and the foreclosure of a mortgage securing that note concurrently or sequentially without one action barring the othe…
[2] A suit on a guaranty and a foreclosure action are not inconsistent remedies, and pursuit of one without satisfaction does not bar pursuit of the other.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A suit on a promissory note or the foreclosure of a mortgage securing that note are not inconsistent remedies available to a mortgagee, and pursuit of one without satisfaction is not a bar to the other”
Establishes that the lender was not barred from pursuing both foreclosure and a judgment on the guaranty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gottschamers guaranteed a $165,000 promissory note and mortgage executed by their corporation. After the corporation defaulted, the lender (August…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order determining the amount of set-off the guarantors of a promissory note and mortgage are entitled to as a result of a foreclosure sale. The trial court allowed a set-off in the amount of $186,500, the value of the property determined at a hearing, and not $195,-000, the amount bid at the foreclosure sale. We reverse.
The appellee was the owner and holder of a note and mortgage in the amount of $165,000 executed by Gottschamer & Gott-schamer, Inc., a Florida corporation, and guaranteed by the appellants, William J. Gottschamer and Nancy Gottschamer. After the corporation defaulted, the appellee, August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., a Michigan corporation, filed a foreclosure action against it and added a count in their complaint seeking damages against the appellants on the guaranty. The foreclosure action was stayed because of a suggestion of bankruptcy filed by the corporation, but the trial court entered a final summary judgment against the appellants, in the total amount of $197,671.56. After the corporation’s bankruptcy action had been concluded, a final summary judgment on the foreclosure action was entered. A foreclosure sale was held, and the appellee bid the amount of $195,000 and subsequently received a certificate of title in its name.
At a subsequent hearing to determine the value of the property and the amount of the set-off to which the appellants are entitled, the court determined that the market value of the property was $186,500. An order was then entered allowing the appellee to execute on its judgment to the extent of the difference between that amount and the amount of the judgment plus accrued interest thereon.
We disagree with the appellants’ contention that the appellee’s election to join its claim against the appellants in the foreclosure action precluded the appellee from obtaining a judgment against the appellants until the amount of the deficiency had been determined in the foreclosure action. A suit on a promissory note or the foreclosure of a mortgage securing that note are not inconsistent remedies available to a mortgagee, and pursuit of one without satisfaction is not a bar to the other, Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, 211 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Similarly, a suit on a guaranty and a foreclosure action are not inconsistent remedies, and therefore pursuit of either of those remedies without satisfaction is not a bar to the pursuit of the other. See Klondike v. Blair; Spencer v. American Advisory Corp., 338 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
We, however, agree with the appellants’ argument that since the price bid at the foreclosure sale was higher than the trial court’s determination of the market value of the property, they were entitled to a set-off in the amount of the price bid at the sale. When the amount bid at the foreclosure sale is higher than the fair market value of the property subject to the mortgage, the amount bid must be applied to the debt as fixed by the final judgment. We agree with the First District Court of Appeal’s holding in the case of Provident National Bank v. Thunderbird, Assoc., 364 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), wherein the court stated:
The amount for which a mortgaged property sells at foreclosure sale, whether to the mortgagee or to a stranger, is (less such costs and expenditures as provided in the final judgment of foreclosure) applied to the debt as fixed by the final judgment of foreclosure. Although the amount for which mortgaged property sells at a properly conducted foreclosure sale is not conclusive as to the value of the property nor the right to a deficiency judgment, the deficiency may not exceed the difference between the amount for which the property so sold and the amount of the indebtedness secured by the final judgment of foreclosure.
Id. at 795.
Accordingly, since the price bid at the foreclosure sale was higher than the fair market value of the property, the appellants should have received a set-off in the amount of $195,000.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Royal Palm Corporate Ctr. Ass'n, Ltd. v. Pugliese, III, 89 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…72). “[P]ursuit of one without satisfaction is not a bar to the other.” Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, 211 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), approved, Junction Bit, 262 So. 2d at 660; see also Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (an action on a note and an action to foreclose on a mortgage are not inconsistent remedies). Klondike is distinguishable but instructive. In Klondike, the plaintiffs first obtained a judgment on the note, did not cause execution…
-
Hatton v. Barnett Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty., 550 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ciates, 364 So. 2d 790, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (emphasis added). This court followed Provident National Bank in a case involving an action for a deficiency judgment against a guarantor. Gott-schamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Nothing has been cited to us, nor has our independent research disclosed, any other law than that laid out in Provident National Bank and Gottschamer. In opposition, the appellee argues that these cases are distinguishable and d…
-
Photomagic Indus., Inc. v. Broward Bank, 526 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…which the guarantors’ exposure was to be set-off) exceeded the amount of the debt, the guarantors were never in a position of jeopardy and therefore were not entitled to subrogation. See Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). By paying without any legal requirement to do so, the guarantors were mere volunteers and the court therefore correctly held there was no right of subro-gation. Boley v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 121, 72 So. 644 (1916); Eastern Nat’l Bank…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, 211 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Provident Nat'l Bank v. Thunderbird Assocs., 364 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Spencer v. Am. Advisory Corp., 338 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)