KARL LAWRENCE, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 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.
A borrower appealed an order denying his motion to set aside a foreclosure sale, claiming the lender's bid was grossly inadequate and there was an irregularity in the sale process. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying such a motion when the lender itself is the winning bidder and equity does not warrant setting aside the sale.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale. The question is not simply whether the bid price was grossly inadequate, but whether equity requires the sale be set aside, and the court properly applied this standard.
[1] Foreclosure sales are equitable proceedings in which the trial court is empowered to ensure equity is done.
[2] To set aside a foreclosure sale, litigants must allege adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing that they exist.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To set aside a foreclosure sale, the law has 'consistently required that litigants allege one or more adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing to the trial court that they exist in order to successfully obtain an order that sets aside a judicial foreclosure sale.'”
Establishes the legal standard for setting aside a foreclosure sale under Florida law, requiring both adequate equitable factors and proper proof thereof.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lender obtained a foreclosure judgment against the borrower and submitted the winning bid at the foreclosure sale. The borrower objected and moved…
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 Motion To Set Aside Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
The borrower appeals an order denying his second amended motion to set aside a foreclosure sale. He argues the trial court erred in denying the motion because the lender’s bid was grossly inadequate and there was an irregularity in the sale.1 We find no error and affirm.
Our supreme court has emphasized the equitable nature of foreclosure proceedings, which has been codified by our legislature. Arsali v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 121 So.3d 511, 518 (Fla.2013). The trial court is empowered with the authority to ensure equity is done. Id. at 517-20.
To set aside a foreclosure sale, the law has “consistently required that litigants allege one or more adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing to the trial court that they exist in order to successfully obtain an order that sets aside a judicial foreclosure sale.” Id. at 518. Those factors include “gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake ..., and irregularity in the conduct of the sale.” Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 123 So. 561, 561 (1929). In Arsa-li, our supreme court advised that foreclosure sales may be set aside upon a showing of one or more of those factors. 121 So.3d at 518.
The trial court must determine if equity warrants that the sale be set aside. Id. at 519. A trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside a foreclosure sale will be affirmed absent a showing that the court abused its discretion, id.
Here, the lender, who had already obtained a foreclosure judgment against the borrower, submitted the winning bid at the foreclosure sale. The borrower objected to the sale and moved to set it aside, *152asserting that the bid price was grossly inadequate and there was an alleged irregularity in the sale process. The trial court, sitting in equity, reviewed the factors, and found no justification to set aside the sale.
The question is not simply whether the bid price was grossly inadequate, but rather whether equity requires the sale be set. aside. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in this case. The lender was the bidder, not a third-party purchaser.
To the extent the borrower is concerned about a deficiency judgment, opr legislature has provided a remedy. Section 45.031(8), Florida Statutes (2014), provides:
The amount of the bid for the property at the sale shall be conclusively pre-súmed to be sufficient consideration for the sale_If the case is one in which a deficiency judgment may be sought and application is made for a deficiency, the amount bid at the- sale may be considered by the court as one of the factors in determining a deficiency under the usual equitable principles. - •
§ 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added).
While there is a legal presumption that the foreclosure bid is the fair market value of the property, the borrower has the ability to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence concerning the property’s fair market value should the lender seek a deficiency judgment. See Vantium Capital, Inc. v. Hobson, 137 So.3d 497, 499-500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Affirmed.
GROSS and KLINGEÑSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…on to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale. Arsali v. Chase Home Fin., LLC., 121 So. 3d 511, 511 (Fla. 2013). foreclosure sale. IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan, 104 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). See Lawrence v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC., 197 So. 3d 150, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (Noting: “Those factors include ‘gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake . . . , and irregularity in the conduct of the sale.’”) (quoting Moran-Allen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 204 (1929)). Venezia…
-
Tanis v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 289 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…92). Accordingly, those equitable factors sufficient to support relief from a sale include “gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake . . . , and irregularity in the conduct of the sale.” Lawrence v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 197 So. 3d 150, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 203, 123 So. 561, 561 (1929)). Despite the materiality of equitable considerations, the exercise of judicial discretion is tempered by the statutory t…
-
Aparicio v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 278 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…equitable factors.” Arsali, 121 So. 3d at 518 (citation omitted). “Those factors include ‘gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake . . . , and irregularity in the conduct of the sale.’” Lawrence v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 197 So. 3d 150, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203, 203, 123 So. 561, 561 (1929)). Here, in pursuing relief from the sale, the borrowers failed to allege “one or more adequate equitable factors and ma…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1929)
- Arsali v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 121 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2013)
- Vantium Cap., Inc. v. Hobson, 137 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)