LAWRENCE F. WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ADAMS & FUSSELLE, INC., 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.
Wilson, who sold unimproved property via agreement for deed, sought a deficiency judgment after foreclosure when the buyer defaulted. The trial court denied the deficiency judgment based on evidence that the property's market value exceeded the remaining debt, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that denial of deficiency judgments is proper when equitable considerations support it.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the deficiency judgment. The court affirmed the denial, finding that competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's implicit finding that the property's value exceeded the outstanding debt, and that equitable considerations warranted denying the deficiency judgment.
[1] The granting of a deficiency decree in a foreclosure action is a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge.
[2] A trial court's denial of a deficiency judgment will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion, especially when equitable considerations support the denial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is undisputed that the granting of a deficiency decree in a foreclosure action is always a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge in light of the facts of the case, and will not be disturbed absent a positive showing of a clear abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for deficiency judgments—trial court discretion is controlling absent clear abuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson and Adams & Fusselle entered into an agreement for deed on September 16, 1980, for the sale of unimproved real property for $30,500. Adams & Fu…
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 Equitable Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The appellant in this appeal seeks review of the order of the trial court which denied appellant’s motion for a deficiency judgment. Appellant was the seller and appel-lee the buyer in an agreement for deed executed on September 16, 1980. The agreement for deed involved the sale of unimproved real property for $30,500. Ap-pellee paid $2,750 down, with the balance due in installments, the first due on April 16, 1981. Appellee paid none of the installments and appellant instituted the foreclosure action below on April 12, 1982. After final judgment of foreclosure, a foreclosure sale ensued at which appellant was the sole bidder. He purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for his bid of $100.00 and thereafter sought a deficiency decree.
At the hearing on the motion for the deficiency decree, both parties presented experts who testified as to market value of the property in amounts varying from $14,-400 to $50,800. On the basis of the evidence, the trial court declined to enter a deficiency judgment. We affirm.
It is undisputed that the granting of a deficiency decree in a foreclosure action is always a matter for the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge in light of the facts of the case, and will not be disturbed absent a positive showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Weinstein v. Park Manor Construction Co., 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Matlack v. Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Builders Finance Co., Inc. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
While granting of deficiency judgments is the rule rather than the exception, a denial is proper and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion where there are facts and circumstances that create equitable considerations supporting the trial court’s denial. Baxter v. Kobs, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhatten Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hamilton Investment Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). If the value of the foreclosed property exceeds the debt, the trial court is authorized to deny a deficiency. Though the evidence before the trial judge below was conflicting, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to conclude that the trial judge so found. Hamilton Investment Trust. We, therefore, conclude that the record does not contain a positive showing of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. It is not proper for us to reweigh or re-evaluate the evidence before the trial court or substitute our judgment for his. Matlack.
Affirmed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Valois, 570 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…perty] purchased by the mortgagees exceeded the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a deficiency judgment.4 Fiorentino, 512 So. 2d at 229; Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In the case before us, as in Fiorentino, there was sufficient evidence that the fair market value exceeded the amount of the debt owed. There w…
-
Farah v. Iberia Bank, 47 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…he mortgagor until, unless, and only to the extent that a deficiency judgment is rendered after an appropriate exercise of the trial court’s discretion in accordance with applicable principles of law and equity. See Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and cases cited therein; see also Fulton v. R.K. Cooper Constr. Co., 208 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), writ dismissed, 216 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1968). Moreover, the trial court must also consider the claim that the appellee speci…
-
Vives v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 128 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…iciency decree is a claim in equity awardable in the "sound judicial discretion” of the trial court. See, e.g., Carlson v. Becker, 45 So. 2d 116, 116 (Fla. 1950); Komfeld v. Diaz, 634 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (addressing deficiency judgments). A suit on a promissory note is an action at law. See Mary Dee’s, Inc. v. Tartamella, 492 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Lear v. Meigs, 188 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Either can be pursued i…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S/D Enters., Inc. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 374 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hamilton Inv. Tr. v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Builders Fin. Co., Inc. v. Ridgewood Homesites, Inc., 157 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. Jones, 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Weinstein v. Park Manor Constr. Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Matlack v. Artemus W. Owen and Josephine Owen, 181 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Baxter v. Eugenie Kobs and Jean A. Trochet, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Proto, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)