JERRY RICHARDS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

SALLY DYSART, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Suresh Mody and Richard Cava v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
  …ing inadequacy. Maule Indus., Inc., 91 So. 2d at 311. Likewise, this Court has similarly found that a foreclosure sale bid amounting to 72% of the foreclosed property’s value is not grossly or startlingly inadequate. See Moody v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 643 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Aames Capital Corp. v. Boswell, 713 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(refusing to set aside a foreclosure sale bid price amounting to 56% of the value of the foreclosed property). Furthermore, in Moody, this Court noted th…
• Blue Star Invs., Inc. v. Britt A. Johnson & BA Mortg., LLC, 801 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
  …was 69.09% of the property’s appraised value, an amount that is not grossly or startlingly inadequate. See Mody, 747 So. 2d at 1018 (holding that sale bid of 67.3% of the highest appraisal value not grossly inadequate); Moody v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 643 So. 2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding that sale for 72.18% of property’s value not grossly inadequate). Generally, cases where foreclosure sales have been properly vacated have involved “situations in which a very small, usually only nominal, amount has…
• Action Realty & Invs., Inc. v. Halima Grandison & Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 930 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …dequate). Findings of gross inadequacy of price are confined to “situations in which a very small, usually only nominal, amount has been bid for property of substantial value.” Blue Star Invs., 801 So. 2d at 219 (quoting Moody v. Glendale Fed. Bank, 643 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). Because the amount of the sale was not grossly inadequate, as in Blue Star we must reverse the order vacating the sale, because the first factor set forth in the Arlt test was not met. We acknowledge that the second distr…

Authorities Cited

• Rutledge v. Rutledge, 357 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)