WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL SYSTEM FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GRP FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. AND KERRI E. BELL, 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.
The court held that a circuit court has discretion to vacate a foreclosure sale even when the party seeking to vacate is responsible for a mistake, provided the mistake resulted in a grossly inadequate sale price.
[1] A circuit court may vacate a judicial sale when a grossly inadequate sale price is combined with a mistake by a party connected with the sale that results in injustice.
[2] A trial court possesses discretion to set aside a judicial sale even when the complaining party is responsible for the mistake that led to a grossly inadequate sale price…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells Fargo and GRP had competing mortgages and a consolidated foreclosure action. A mediated agreement led to a summary judgment for GRP, but Wells F…
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.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Wells Fargo Financial System Florida, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to vacate a foreclosure sale. We reverse because the circuit court mistakenly believed that it lacked discretion to vacate the sale under the facts of the case.
Wells Fargo and GRP Financial Services Corp. had competing mortgages on a property, and both filed foreclosure actions, which were then consolidated. The two parties reached a mediated agreement. As provided in the agreement, the court entered a summary judgment in favor of GRP that incorporated the agreement and set a judicial sale of the property. GRP’s final judgment and the mediation agreement contemplated that a second summary judgment would be entered for Wells Fargo and the sale proceeds would be distributed according to both judgments. For reasons not explained, the Wells Fargo judgment was never entered. Realizing this, Wells Fargo’s counsel attempted to cancel the sale at the last minute and then mistakenly failed to attend and bid at the sale when it was not cancelled. GRP purchased the property at the sale for $100.
On Wells Fargo’s motion to vacate the sale, the court found that the sale price was inadequate, thus satisfying the first prong of the test set forth in Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1966) (giving court discretion to set aside judicial sale when grossly inadequate sale price was combined with any mistake by person connected with sale which results in injustice to complaining party). The error in this case stems from the court’s mistaken belief that it could not exercise its discretion when the complaining party was responsible for the mistake. As explained in United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Abercrombie, 713 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), “even a unilateral mistake which results in a grossly inadequate price is legally sufficient to invoke the trial court’s discretion to consider setting the sale aside.” As we did in that case, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to reconsider Wells Fargo’s motion.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 68 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…. Paul’s mental condition. See Rosenblatt, 528 So. 2d at 75 (reversing denial of motion to set aside default where trial court mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to grant relief); Wells Fargo Fin. Sys. Fla., Inc. v. GRP Fin. Servs. Corp., 890 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing denial of motion to vacate foreclosure sale because trial court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to vacate). Additionally, as stated above, the trial court was required as a matter of law to vacate the order den…
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bogdan Bjeljac, 43 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…setting the sale aside.” United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Abercrombie, 713 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see Long Beach Mortgage Corp. v. Bebble, 985 So. 2d 611, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Wells Fargo Fin. Sys. Fla., Inc. v. GRP Fin. Servs. Corp., 890 So. 2d 383, 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The sufficiency of the “mistake” is shown, if “the owner became deprived of an opportunity to bid at the sale when, because of inadvertence or a mistake, an attorney who was to represent him there for that purpose was not pr…
-
Richardson v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 941 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…s in which relief from a foreclosure sale will be granted, even if the complaining party was responsible for the mistake, where there is a grossly inadequate sale price. See Wells Fargo Financial System Florida, Inc. v. GRP Financial Services Corp., 890 So. 2d 383, 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Because we are remanding for further proceedings as to Ms. Richardson individually, on remand Ms. Richardson as person [*439] al representative may also make a showing regarding how, if at all, she was harmed and whether th…
Authorities Cited
- Leatha Fleeman Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1966)
- United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Abercrombie, 713 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)