GLENN M. SURRATT, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDE L. FLEMING AND PRISCILLA FLEMING, 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.
In a mechanic's lien foreclosure case, the trial court vacated a judicial sale after the certificate of title was issued, finding the bid price inadequate and the sale unfair. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction to consider the motion post-appeal but remanded for the trial court to articulate its factual findings and reasoning.
The trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to vacate the sale even after the appeal period expired, as courts of equity retain general jurisdiction over judicial sales made under their orders. However, the appellate court could not determine whether the trial court properly exercised discretion because the trial court failed to state its findings of fact and reasoning in its order.
[1] A court of equity has jurisdiction over judicial sales made under its orders and may set aside or vacate sales even after confirmation.
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate and set aside a sale even after the time for appealing the final judgment has expired.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Courts of equity have general jurisdiction over judicial sales made under their orders and may set aside or vacate sales even after confirmation.”
Establishes that trial courts retain equitable jurisdiction to reconsider judicial sales even after the appeal period has expired.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees (property owners) defaulted in a mechanic's lien foreclosure suit. Appellant Surratt was the successful bidder at a judicial sale held u…
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 Vacate Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This appeal arises out of a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit. Appellees, defendants-property owners below, allowed a default to be taken against them. Appellant was the successful bidder at the sale which was held under Section 45.031, Florida Statutes. Appellees did not attend the sale nor file objections thereto.
Four days after the clerk issued the certificate of title to appellant, appellees filed a motion to vacate and set aside the sale. Appellees contended the successful bid was inadequate and resulted from circumstances which caused unfairness. Numerous facts were set forth in the motion to support the contention but the trial court resolved all of the facts against appellees. Having resolved all factual issues, the trial court requested briefs be filed by counsel for the parties on two questions of law. These questions were:
(1) Did the trial court have jurisdiction to consider the motion to vacate and set aside sale where the time for appealing the final judgment had expired; and (2) did the court have discretion to set aside the sale because of inadequacy of price?
After reviewing the briefs, the trial court rendered an order vacating and setting aside the sale. The order merely stated that after hearing argument of counsel, reviewing the briefs, and considering the entire record, the court found that the sale and certificate of title should be vacated and set aside. Appellant appeals from this order. The trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to vacate and set aside sale though the time had expired to appeal the judgment. Courts of equity have general jurisdiction over judicial sales made under their orders and may set aside or vacate sales even after confirmation. Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142, 72 So. 638 (1916).
This court is unable to determine whether or not the trial court had discretion to set aside the sale, as the order doing this did not set forth the trial court’s findings of fact nor reasoning upon which the order was based. In addition, though the order vacating and setting aside the sale stated the trial court considered the entire record, by its order of 21 July 1972 the trial court resolved all of the factual matters in the motion to vacate and set aside against appellees. The “entire record” does not contain any other facts.
Though a trial court is not required to state findings of fact or grounds of reasoning in its orders, fairness to litigants and appellate courts make this desirable. State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1958).
For the above reasons, this court temporarily relinquishes jurisdiction of this case to the trial court for the sole purpose of having the trial court enter an order nunc pro tunc setting forth the facts or grounds upon which it granted the motion to vacate and set aside sale.
Upon entry of the order, the clerk of the trial court is directed to forward a certified copy thereof to this court and to counsel of record for each of the parties hereto.
Thereafter the parties hereto may request leave to file additional briefs if such be desired.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Beaver St. Fisheries, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…rted by competent substantial evidence. Shaw v. Shaw, supra. Although a trial court is not required to set forth findings of fact or a rationale for its decision, “fairness to litigants and appellate courts make this desirable.” Surratt v. Fleming, 309 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1976). In the absence of express findings of fact, an appellate court sometimes will attempt to interpolate missing findings so as to reconcile the judgment with the evidence. Should it pro…
-
Heard v. Mathis, 344 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…a trial court is not required to state findings of fact or grounds of reasoning in its judgments or orders, fairness to both the parties and appellate courts make this desirable. E. g., State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla.1958); Surratt v. Fleming, 309 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Nevertheless an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts unless the record [*655] clearly reflects the findings or conclusions reached were erroneous. Cf.: Beavers v. Conner, 289 So. 2d 462…
-
Surratt v. Fleming, 322 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…n of this case to the trial court for the entry of an order nunc pro tunc setting forth the facts upon which the trial court granted defendants’ motion to vacate and set aside a judicial sale of defendants’ property to appellant. Surratt v. Fleming, 309 So. 2d 614 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). [*40] The trial court entered the requested order, however, the facts recited by the trial court had been resolved adversely to defendant by a previous order; therefore, there was no record to support the trial court’s findings…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- Marsh v. Marsh, 72 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1916)