GGG FOUNDATION AND TRUST LLC AND SHELDON J. VANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MANAGER OF THE TRUST
v.
HMC ASSETS, LLC SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY AS SEPARATE TRUSTEE OF CIVIC HOLDINGS III TRUST
PER CURIAM.
A trial court, in deciding whether there are equitable grounds to vacate a foreclosure sale, has “large discretion which will only be interfered with by the appellate court in a clear case of injustice.” Mitchell v. Mason, 79 So. 163, 164 (Fla. 1918). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection to the sale. The trial court reasonably found Appellant did not prove the grounds for relief and failed to show that the sale price was inadequate or that it was the result of a mistake, fraud, or other irregularity. See Arsali v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 121 So. 3d 511, 516 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that a plaintiff seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale based on the inadequacy of the sale price must show that the inadequacy resulted from a “mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct, or irregularity upon the part of either the purchaser or the person connected with the sale”). We therefore AFFIRM. ROWE, C.J., and JAY and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956)…t is apparent that at least before the 1953 Act, Section 702.02, the circuit courts exercised jurisdiction to hear and determine motions to vacate a foreclosure sale even after the sale had been confirmed. The case of Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679, 79 So. 163 specifically ruled that such a sale could be set aside by the chancellor, who had a wide discretion. In Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142, 72 So. 638, 639, we said: “That courts of equity have a general supervision over judicial sales made under their de…
-
Ohio Realty Inv. Corp. v. S. Bank OF W. Palm Beach, 300 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1974)…a third party, Sea Level Development, Inc. IMPROPER SALE TIME Respondent contends that the trial court did not err in denying petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside the sale, relying on this Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679, 79 So. 163 (1918), as controlling. In Mitchell, as in the case sub jud-ice, the sale occurred subsequent to a statement by the individual conducting the sale that it would not be held, resulting in a possible bidder not being present at the time the sale took…
-
Heilman v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 506 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…sufficient grounds to set aside the sale is a matter within the exercise of the discretion of the judge of the court that has supervision over the sale, which will not be interfered with except where it is abused. In Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679, 79 So. 163, 165 (1918), the court said: The order of confirmation is equivalent to an adjudication that the sale was one proper to be approved. It creates a presumption of the regularity of the proceedings. And while an interested party may attack an order of…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1918)
- Arsali v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 121 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2013)