TEXAS COMMERCE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS CUSTODIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL NATHANSON A/K/A MICHAEL E. NATHANSON; BETTY NATHANSON A/K/A ELIZABETH ANN NATHANSON; PGA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; MARLWOOD HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JUPITER ASSETS, INC.; JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE AS UNKNOWN TENANTS IN POSSESSION, APPELLEES
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.
Texas Commerce Bank National Association appealed the trial court's rejection of its foreclosure sale bid because it tendered the clerk's fee via law firm cost account check instead of cash, despite the Palm Beach County Clerk's written policy accepting such checks. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by enforcing a cash-only requirement that conflicted with the Clerk's established policy and acknowledged error.
The trial court abused its discretion and the decision was reversed with directions to enter an order requiring the clerk to accept TCBNA's bid and cost payment and declaring TCBNA the successful bidder. The court held that orders of court are adopted upon the court's signature and are the responsibility of the court, not subject to contract law principles regarding the terms the bidder itself drafted.
[1] A trial court commits a gross abuse of discretion by upholding a foreclosure sale where the clerk's refusal to accept a valid payment method directly conflicted with the…
[2] A clerk of court's written policy regarding payment methods for foreclosure sales is binding, even if a deputy clerk on the scene deviates from that policy.
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“orders of court are adopted by the court upon signature and are the responsibility of the court”
Establishes that court orders, once signed, become the court's responsibility and cannot be treated as mere contracts binding on the party who drafted the form.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTCBNA obtained a summary final judgment for $524,195.40 in a mortgage foreclosure action. At the courthouse sale, TCBNA submitted the highest bid of $…
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 Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge
We deny the motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification withdrawing our prior opinion and substituting the following in its place.
Appellant Texas Commerce Bank National Association (TCBNA) appeals the trial court’s order overruling its objection to a foreclosure sale and denying its Motion to Require Clerk to Accept Plaintiffs Bid. We reverse.
TCBNA filed a complaint to foreclose on a mortgage, and received a summary final judgment in the amount of $524,195.40. The controversy in question erupted on the courthouse steps at the time of sale of the property. TCBNA and another bidder, Jupiter Assets, Inc., both sought the property. TCBNA offered the highest bid at $151,000. Jupiter Assets, however, objected to TCBNA paying the $40 clerk’s fee for the sale with a law firm cost account check as opposed to cash. Despite the Palm Beach County Clerk’s written policy of accepting cost account checks in lieu of cash, the deputy clerk on the scene refused to accept the $40 cost account check. To TCBNA’s consternation, Jupiter Assets was declared the successful bidder. TCBNA filed motions to correct the mistake.
The trial court declined to grant relief on TCBNA’s motions despite the Clerk of the Court’s acknowledgment on the record that it was in error in rejecting the cost check and bid submitted on behalf of TCBNA. The trial court found it disposi-tive that TCBNA had prepared the proposed form of the final judgment in the foreclosure case, which was signed as submitted, and which provided that the Clerk’s fee would be paid in cash and in advance of the sale. TCBNA had failed to pay in advance or in cash; therefore, the trial court reasoned under contract law, TCBNA had failed to comply with the terms of the order that TCBNA itself had drafted. The court overlooked the well-established legal principle that orders of court are adopted by the court upon signature and are the responsibility of the court.
In doing so, the trial court ignored the Clerk’s motion, which acknowledged irregularity and mistake with regard to the handling of the sale. See generally Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1966)(“standing alone mere inadequacy of price is not a ground for setting aside a judicial sale. But where the inadequacy is gross and is shown to result from any mistake, accident, surprise, fraud, misconduct or irregularity upon the part of either the purchaser or other person connected with the sale, with resulting injustice to the complaining party, equity will act to prevent the wrong result”). The Clerk established that a “for cash” requirement is understood to be cash or check, and that the Palm Beach County Clerk’s Office routinely accepted law firm cheeks as payment of costs at foreclosure. The policy has been memorialized in Palm Beach County Administrative Order 95-3-R which provides that “... [i]f you are an attorney and you (or your client) are the successful bidder, you may pay your deposit and bid ... (and) costs and fees by a trust account check ... or law firm account check.” This administrative order was in place at the time of the sale.
A trial court’s decision on the setting aside of a foreclosure sale is subject to review on an abuse of discretion standard, and may be reversed only when the trial court has grossly abused its discretion. See RSR Invs., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Pinellas County, 647 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In this ease, where the conditions imposed at sale directly conflicted with the written policy of the Clerk’s Office and the Clerk has acknowledged the error, the trial court’s decision was a gross abuse of discretion.
We therefore reverse with directions to enter an order requiring the clerk to accept TCBNA’s bid and cost payment and declaring TCBNA as successful bidder on the property in question.
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.
KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Opportunity Funding I, LLC v. Igor Otetchestvennyi, 909 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ion. The trial court denied the motion. It is from these orders that the mortgagee appeals. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to set aside a foreclosure sale is reviewed for a gross abuse of discretion. Tex. Commerce Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nathanson, 763 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). While this is difficult to do, we find the mortgagee met this burden given the unique facts in this case. The Clerk of the Court lacks authority to issue a certificate of title or a writ of possession when an objection to a for…
Authorities Cited
- Leatha Fleeman Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1966)
- RSR Invs., Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Pinellas Cnty., 647 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)