NORTHERN INVESTMENT CORPORATION
v.
WILLIS H. COPPOCK, ET AL.
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.
Northern Investment Corporation appeals an order denying confirmation of a judicial sale of real estate in a tax foreclosure proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, holding that inadequacy of price alone does not warrant setting aside a regularly conducted judicial sale unless the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience and raise a presumption of fraud or unfairness.
A judicial sale regularly made in accordance with law on due notice without fraud, unfairness, surprise or mistake will not be set aside for mere inadequacy of price unless the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience. Here, the inadequacy was not sufficient to warrant reversal, and the trial court's discretionary decision to order re-sale was an abuse of discretion.
“A judicial sale, which is regularly made in the manner prescribed by law on due notice and without fraud, unfairness, surprise or mistake, will not be set aside or refused confirmation on account of mere inadequacy of price however great, unless the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience and raise the presumption of fraud, unfairness or mistake.”
Establishes the governing rule that gross inadequacy of price alone does not warrant setting aside a judicial sale absent shocking circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReal estate was sold at a Master's sale for $1,000.00 in a tax foreclosure proceeding. The property was subject to outstanding tax liens totaling $2,9…
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 Judicial Sale Confirmation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from order denying confirmation of sale and ordering re-sale of real estate in a suit foreclosing tax sale certificates.
The City of Fort Myers as a tax lien holder party defendant objected to confirmation of sale because of inadequacy of price bid.
The property sold at Master’s sale for $1000.00.
A stipulation in the record shows that besides the tax liens being foreclosed there were remaining outstanding tax liens.in the sum of $2904.40. The sale, of course, was subject to these other outstanding tax liens.
Experts examined as to the value of the land at the time of the sale placed the same at varying figures ranging from $2500.00 to $6000.00. The price bid, plus outstanding tax liens, was $4904.40.' There was no evidence that the property would bring more than the price bid, should it be resold.
It is true that the matter of refusing confirmation of sale is somewhat discretionary, but the rule is settled in this *170jurisdiction as stated in the opinion in the case of Certain Lands v. City of Coronado Beach, 128 Fla. 884, 175 Sou. 774..
“A judicial sale, which is regularly made in the manner .prescribed'by law on due notice and without fraud, unfairness, surprise or mistake, will not be set aside or refused confirmation on account of mere inadequacy of price however great, unless the inadequacy is so gross' as to shock the conscience and raise the presumption of fraud, unfair-mess or mistake.”
However, in that case we quoted with approval from the case of Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679, 79 Sou. 163, saying :
“ ‘Inadequacy of price in connection with other circumstances having a tendency to cause such inadequacy resulting in injury is considered sufficient grounds to set aside the sale, especially if the circumstances result from the mistake of one whose duty it is under the decree to make sale of the property, yet the Chancellor has a large discretion which will only be interfered with by the appellate court in a clear case of injustice. See Sowards v. Pritchett, 37 Ill. 517; Glenn v. Clapp, 11 Gill. & J. (Md.) 1; Pattison v. Joselyn, 43 Miss. 373; Eberhart v. Gilchrist, 11 N. J. Eq. (Stockton) 167; Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. S. 334; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 512; Mechanics Saving & Building Loan Ass’n v. O’Connor, 29 Ohio State 651; Young v. Teague, Bailey’s Eq. (S. C.) 13.’”
Now, adhering to both enunciations, we, to reverse the order appealed from, would be required to hold that we have here a clear case of injustice. We cannot so hold. A condition of the order of resale was that the movant, City of Fort Myers, should pay the costs incident to resale.
If the Chancellor had denied the motion and confirmed the sale we could not have held him in reversible error be*171cause the inadequacy of price, when considered in connection with outstanding liens, was not sufficient to shock the judicial conscience. In such cases the Chancellor must proceed with caution and exercise a sound judicial discretion to the end that justice shall be done between the parties.
The appellate court is bound to respcet tire decree of the Chancellor in matters where he may exercise sound judicial discretion and affirm his action in that regard, unless it be clearly shown that he has abused such discretion.
So the order must be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cherney v. Cherney, 146 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…unction of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor. If the record supports his findings and fails to reveal any abuse of discretion, such findings should be sustained. See: Northern Investment Corporation v. Coppack, 134 Fla. 168, 183 So. 635; Florida Telephone Corporation v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 677; Courington v. Courington, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 64. Therefore, we affirm the award of support as made by the chancellor in his final decree. This, of course, is…
-
Jerzy Sulkowski and Walter Sulkowski v. Alina Sulkowski, 561 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…because Ms. Sulkowski was not prepared to post her deposit. The decision to set aside a judicial sale rests in the trial court’s discretion, and the appellate court should not typically interfere with that decision. Northern Inv. Corp. v. Coppock, 134 Fla. 168, 183 So. 635 (1938). The trial court’s act of discretion, however, must be based upon a cause which is adequate to justify the equitable relief. Courts have held that the grounds or causes for equitable relief from a judicial sale include matters d…
-
Jefferson Realty OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. United States Rubber Co., 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1969)…on of the trial court’s obligation to determine questions of fact. These holdings are in direct conflict with Povia v. Melvin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 494; Goldfarb v. Robertson, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 504; Northern Investment Corporation v. Coppock, 1938, 134 Fla. 168, 183 So. 635. Thus we have conflict jurisdiction to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal on the merits of the cause. The Rules of Civil Procedure in effect when this trial was had, and which are still in effect, particularly provide…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schroeder v. Young, 161 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1896)
- Mitchell v. Mason, 75 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1918)
- GGG Found. & Tr. LLC v. HMC Assets, 339 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes Are Delinquent (Located in City of Coronado Beach v. City of Coronado Beach, 128 Fla. 884 (Fla. 1937)