STANLEY A. MOODY, A/K/A S.A. MOODY, APPELLANT,
v.
GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, 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.
The court held that a bid of $45,000 for property subject to a $62,341.99 foreclosure judgment, without proof of greater value, does not constitute the gross inadequacy required to set aside a foreclosure sale.
[1] A foreclosure sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of the bid unless the inadequacy is "gross" or "startling."
[2] A bid that is not shown to be significantly less than the property's value does not constitute "gross" or "startling" inadequacy.
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 intelligenceA foreclosure sale resulted in a bid of $45,000 for the property. The foreclosure judgment was $62,341.99. The trial court set aside the sale, but the…
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 Setting Aside Judicial Sales cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The order setting aside the result of a foreclosure sale is reversed because the $45,-000.00 successfully bid for the property, which was not shown to be worth more than the $62,341.99 amount1 of the foreclosure judgment, did not constitute the “gross” or “startling inadequacy” which is a prerequisite to the granting of that relief. Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966); Maule Indust., Inc., v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307, 311 (Fla.1956) (sale for 70% of assumed valuation of property not so inadequate so as to justify setting sale aside).2 The cases in which that relief was properly granted involve situations in which a very small, usually only nominal, amount has been bid for property of substantial value. See Arlt, 190 So. 2d at 575 (property with appraised value of $102,000 sold for $1,000); Fernandez v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 489 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (property valued at $54,300 sold for $100): Kaplan v. Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 381 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (final judgment of foreclosure of $34,472.13 on property sold for $150), pet. for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1980).
Reversed.
. A representative of the mortgagee-appellee was authorized to bid in the property at only slightly more than this figure but did not do so — thus giving rise to this case — because he became confused between his instructions as to this parcel and another offered at the same sale.
. This holding renders it unnecessary to reach the rather more difficult question of whether what happened during the bidding, see supra note 1, amounted to a cognizable "mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct or irregularity” which is also required to set aside a judicial sale. Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966). Compare Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Martin, 605 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 613 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1993) with Kaplan v. Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 381 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
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…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leatha Fleeman Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1966)
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956)
- Forest Hill Ctr., Inc. v. Designed Structures, Inc., 489 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Harley E. Martin, 605 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Romero v. State, 381 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kaplan v. Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 381 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)