ADDISON MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD C. WEIT, 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.
Addison Mortgage Company appealed the trial court's complete denial of a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure proceeding. The court reversed, holding that the mortgagor failed to meet its burden of proving the foreclosed property was worth more than the debt, and that the mortgagee's expert valuation evidence of $600,000 was binding on the trial court.
The mortgagor failed to sustain its burden of proving the property's value exceeded the debt. Because the mortgagee's expert valuation evidence of $600,000 was uncontroverted and the only competent evidence on the property's value, the trial court was bound by it and must enter a deficiency judgment calculated on that valuation.
[1] A mortgagor resisting a deficiency judgment has the burden to demonstrate that the secured property obtained at the foreclosure sale by the mortgagee was worth more than…
[2] A mortgagor resisting a deficiency judgment must present evidence of the property's value exceeding the price bid at the foreclosure sale.
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“It is the burden of the mortgagor in resisting a deficiency judgment to demonstrate that the secured property obtained at the sale by the mortgagee was worth more than the outstanding debt— indeed, more than the price bid at the sale.”
Establishes the legal burden placed on the mortgagor to prove property value exceeds the debt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter obtaining summary judgment on a debt of $782,589.42 in principal, interest, costs and fees, Addison Mortgage Company bid $100.00 for the propert…
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 Valuation Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant, which succeeded to the rights of the mortgagee in a foreclosure proceeding, appeals from the complete denial of an application for a deficiency judgment. We reverse.
After a summary judgment on the underlying debt for $782,589.42 in principal, interest, costs and fees, the appellant successfully bid $100.00 for the property at the foreclosure sale. In the ensuing trial of its claim for a deficiency, the only evidence of the property’s value was introduced by Addison itself, whose expert estimated it at up to $600,000.00. The defendant-mortgagor presented no testimony on the issue. It is the burden of the mortgagor in resisting a deficiency judgment to demonstrate that the secured property obtained at the sale by the mortgagee was worth more than the outstanding debt— indeed, more than the price bid at the sale. Liberty Business Credit Corp. v. Schaffer/Dunadry, 589 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 1296, 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Fara Mfg. Co., Inc. v.
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 366 So. 2d 164,165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). This burden was obviously not sustained below.
The trial court therefore erred in denying the mortgagee any deficiency whatever. Under the present circumstances, the court is bound by the only competent evidence on the point, as gratuitously introduced, despite the absence of any obligation to do so, by the mortgagee. See Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sandcastle Beach Joint Venture, 498 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fara Mfg. Co., Inc., 366 So. 2d at 165.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a deficiency judgment calculated on a $600,-000.00 value of the property in question.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vantium Cap., Inc. v. Hobson, 137 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…es a waiver). Moreover, a trial court is bound by the only competent evidence as to property value, where such evidence is “gratuitously introduced, despite the absence of any obligation to do so, by the mortgagee.” Addison Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Weit, 613 So. 2d 104, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citations omitted). In sum, the trial court did not properly apply the burden-shifting framework of Florida law on deficiency judgments. Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the claims for deficienc…
-
First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Goodwin Beach P'ship, 644 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…989). . Samuel R. Shorstein, Donald Freedman, Jane Freedman, Jack F. Shorstein, Harry L. Shor-stein, William J. Joos, Jack Clifford Sherrod, Mitchell R. Montgomery, Amos F. Almand, III, and Gerald L. Dake. . See Addison Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Weit, 613 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Fara Manufacturing Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n. of Miami, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . See Coral Gables Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n. v. Whitewater Enterprises, Inc., 614 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Lib…
-
Chidnese v. McCOLLEM, 695 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…oving that the fair market value of the property was less than the total debt determined by the final judgment. See Norwest Bank, 522 So. 2d at 547. The mortgagor may offer evidence to refute the mortgagee’s contention. Addison Mortgage Co. v. Weit, 613 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The trial court must then determine whether there are any “equitable considerations” that warrant a reduction of the actual deficiency. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Motley, 915 F. 2d 1517 (11th Cir.1990). When a court does not s…
Authorities Cited
- Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sandcastle Beach Joint Venture an Ala. Gen. P'ship, 498 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Liberty Bus. Credit Corp. v. Schaffer/Dunadry, 589 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Pardo v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fara Mfg. Co., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 366 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)