EMILIO C. GUERRA ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MUTUAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, J. C. HOLLIS AND NETTIE HOLLIS, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a post-foreclosure sale order denying a petition to set aside the sale due to an allegedly inadequate purchase price. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that mere inadequacy of price, without other irregularities, is insufficient to justify rescinding a foreclosure sale.
No, the mere inadequacy of the purchase price at a foreclosure sale is not sufficient grounds to set aside the sale when there are no other irregularities or special circumstances justifying rescission.
“Under the circumstances reflected by this record we are of the view that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in holding that mere inadequacy of purchase price was not sufficient to justify rescission of the foreclosure sale.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, defendants in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, petitioned to set aside the foreclosure sale of their property. Their sole ground was 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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding have appealed- a post-decretal order denying their petition to set aside the sale of the property involved herein which was held pursuant to the mandate of the final decree.
The sole ground assigned in support of appellants’ petition is the inadequacy of the purchase price paid for the property by the successful bidder at'the sale. The'chancellor found from the evidence adduced .at the hearing on appellants’ petition that the value of the property was approximately twice the amount paid for it at.the foreclosure sale. No irregularities in connection with the conduct of the sale were either alleged or proved. The petition and proof are silent with respect to any other special grounds which’ might' justify rescission such as collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust, fraud, or misconduct upon the part of the purchaser or other party connected with the sale. The property sold for an amount sufficient to satisfy the monetary requirements of the final decree, so no question of a deficiency decree is involved. Under the circumstances reflected by this record we are of the view that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in holding that mere inadequacy of purchase price was not *16sufficient to justify rescission of the foreclosure sale.1 The order appealed is accordingly affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aames Cap. Corp. v. Megen Boswell, 713 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…successful bid of approximately fifty percent (50%) of the property value, which did not satisfy the final judgment, the First DCA emphasized the discretion of the trial judge and upheld the sale. Guerra v. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Association, 194 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Based upon the extant authority from the Florida Supreme Court and our sister courts in Florida, it is our determination in the instant ease that the exercise of the trial court’s discretion must be upheld. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN,…
Authorities Cited
- Ruff v. Guar. Title & Tr. Co., 99 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1930)
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956)