SOUTHERN REALTY & UTILITIES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BELMONT MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Southern Realty challenged a foreclosure sale of mortgaged property where the mortgagee (Belmont) purchased the property for $50,000 despite an appraisal showing fair market value of $321,150. The Florida Supreme Court held that a chancellor has broader discretion to refuse confirmation of an unconfirmed foreclosure sale based on inadequacy of consideration than to set aside an already-confirmed sale.
The trial chancellor properly exercised his discretion in refusing to confirm the foreclosure sale and ordering a resale. A chancellor has broader discretion to refuse confirmation of an unconfirmed foreclosure sale than to set aside an already-confirmed sale, and the showing of inadequacy plus the prospect of a large deficiency judgment justified the chancellor's action.
“Since the foreclosure sale is not complete until it is confirmed, and carries no presumption of regularity, it should not take as strong a showing to justify a chancellor's exercise of his discretion to refuse confirmation as it does to set aside a confirmed sale.”
Establishes the key distinction between refusing confirmation and setting aside confirmed sales, making the standard less stringent for pre-confirmation refusal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBelmont Mortgage Corporation foreclosed on a real estate mortgage with a principal balance of $441,750. At the foreclosure sale, Belmont purchased 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 Foreclosure Sale Confirmation cases and more on FLexlaw
The respondent was the plaintiff in a suit to foreclose a real estate mortgage for the principal balance of $441,750.00. The complaint specifically withdrew from the chancellor’s consideration the question of a deficiency and reserved this matter for a subsequent action. A final decree of foreclosure was entered and the respondent purchased the mortgaged property at the foreclosure sale for $50,000.00. Before confirmation of the sale, the petitioner moved to set it aside on the ground of inadequacy of ■consideration. An appraisal made by a member of the M.A.I. showing the fair market value of the property to be $321,150.00 was submitted in support of this motion. The chancellor set aside the foreclosure sale and ordered a new sale of the property.
The respondent took an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, Third District, which reversed and remanded. This decision, which we are asked to review by a petition for certiorari based on alleged conflict, was reported in 172 So.2d 522.
It is apparent that conflict of the sort found in Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota 1 has been clearly demonstrated by the petition for certiorari. The statement of the District Court that:
“The amount bid at a foreclosure sale does not conclusively establish the value of the property for the determination of the equities upon an application for a deficiency decree.”
is the type of obiter dictum that generates conflict. It is in absolute conflict with our holding in Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Moscovitz.2
It should be noted that this was not a case of the chancellor’s being asked to set aside a sale which he has already confirmed, which carries with it a presumption of regularity,3 but of his refusing to confirm and ordering a new sale. It is both the right and duty of the chancellor to supervise the process in his court and to protect all the parties thereto from unfairness as well as fraud in its execution. Macfarlane v. Macfarlane.4 Since the foreclosure sale is not complete until it is confirmed,5 and carries no presumption of regularity, it should not take as strong a showing to justify a chancellor’s exercise of his discretion to refuse confirmation as it does to set aside a confirmed sale. His discretion is broader in the one case than in the other.
The showing of inadequacy contained in the record plus the other factors appearing which indicate that respondent would be able to realize a very large deficiency judgment at law in addition to acquiring the mortgage property, justified the chancellor in setting aside the sale, and in ordering an immediate re-sale thereof.
We, therefore, quash the order of the District Court of Appeal with directions to affirm the chancellor’s order.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R. K. Cooper Constr. Co. v. Fulton, 216 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1968)…lor in the foreclosure case is justified in setting aside the sale for reasons of inadequacy of consideration or other compelling factors under the established rules of fair play and equity. Southern Realty & Util. Corp. v. Belmont Mfg. Corp., Fla., 186 So. 2d 24. The value of the property as established by a sale so made is conclusive insofar as consideration to support title to the property in the purchaser, but the statutory automatic approval cannot bind the trial court when a suit at law is filed to enf…
-
State v. Bennie Jackson and Henry Fisher, 281 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1973)…v. City of Sarasota, 122 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1960), which seized upon obiter for conflict was a 4 — 3 decision in which only one judge remains as a member of the present Supreme Court; the subsequent Southern Realty & Util. Corp. v. Belmont Mtg. Corp., 186 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1966), cited for conflict in the present opinion, relies upon Sunad. [*356] This Court should expressly recede from any notice of conflict on mere obiter dictum which is entirely inconsistent with the important bases of constitutional, statutor…1 / 2
-
Fulton v. R. K. Cooper Constr. Co., 208 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ntered upon the basis that there was no issue upon the equitable defense which had previously been sustained by the court. The appellee, and apparently the lower court, relied upon Southern Realty & Utility Corp. v. Belmont Mortgage Corp., Fla.1966, 186 So. 2d 24. See also Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moscovitz, 119 Fla. 708, 161 So. 80 (1935). The most recent decision upon the point appears to be that of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Bobby Jones Garden Apts. v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. C…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunad, Inc. v. City OF Sarasota, 122 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1960)
- Macfarlane v. Macfarlane, 50 Fla. 570 (Fla. 1905)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1918)
- GGG Found. & Tr. LLC v. HMC Assets, 339 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- The Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moscovitz, 119 Fla. 708 (Fla. 1935)
- The Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Corbett E. Tumlin, 138 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1939)
- S. Cross Bayou Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas Cnty., 172 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Belmont Mortg. Corp. v. S. Realty & Utils. Corp., 172 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)