SUN FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
R. G. C., AN INDIANA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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 mortgagor seeking redemption of foreclosed property must pay the full mortgage debt, not merely the amount bid at the foreclosure sale. The court held that redemption rights do not fix the redemption amount at the sale price, following established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
A mortgagor has no right to redeem property by paying only the sale price. Instead, to redeem foreclosed property sold for less than the mortgage debt, the mortgagor must tender or pay the entire mortgage debt into court.
[1] A mortgagor does not have an absolute right to redeem property for the amount bid at a foreclosure sale if that amount is less than the total mortgage debt.
[2] To redeem property sold at foreclosure for less than the mortgage debt, the mortgagor must tender or pay the entire mortgage debt, not just the sale bid amount.
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“To redeem property which has been sold under a mortgage for less than the mortgage debt, it is not sufficient to tender the amount of the sale. The whole mortgage debt must be tendered or paid into court.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that redemption requires payment of the full debt, not just the sale price
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mortgagee obtained a Summary Final Judgment against the mortgagor in a foreclosure action for $1,988,061.25. The mortgaged property was sold at pu…
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 Right Of Redemption cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether a mortgagor has an absolute right to timely redeem its property for the amount bid at a foreclosure sale.
The facts pertinent to this appeal are that the appellee-mortgagee was awarded a Summary Final Judgment in a real property foreclosure action against the appellant-mortgagor. The Summary Final Judgment contained a finding that the appellee-mort-gagee was due the sum of $1,988,061.25. A public sale of the mortgaged property was ordered. At the sale the appellee-mortga-gee purchased the property for $1,000.00. The appellant-mortgagor now claims that it is entitled to timely redeem the property for $1,000.00.
There are no Florida appellate opinions on this limited issue. Appellant-mortgagor contends, however, that Section 45.031(7), Florida Statutes (1975), is determinative in that it provides, “the amount of the bid for the property at the sale shall be conclusively presumed to be sufficient consideration for the sale”. This provision has no application to the present issue. Section 45.031(7) only establishes that the amount bid for the property is sufficient consideration. The issue on appeal is whether the amount successfully bid at a foreclosure sale fixes the amount for which the mortgagor may redeem its property.
We hold that a mortgagor has no such right. The Supreme Court of the United States reached a similar conclusion in the case of Collins v. Riggs, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 491, 20 L.Ed. 723 (1872). The court held:
To redeem property which has been sold under a mortgage for less than the mortgage debt, it is not sufficient to tender the amount of the sale. The whole mortgage debt must be tendered or paid into court. The party offering to redeem, proceeds upon the hypothesis that, as to him, the mortgage has never been foreclosed and is still in existence. Therefore, he can only lift it by paying it. The money will be subject to distribution between the mortgagee and the purchaser, in equitable proportions, so as to reimburse the latter his purchase money and pay the former the balance of his debt.
We adopt this language as a correct statement of the law in the present case.
The order denying the appellant-mortgagor’s Motion to Redeem is affirmed.
DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CSB Realty, Inc. v. Eurobuilding Corp., 625 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…at the judgment be affirmed, but cites no authority in support of its proposition that it may redeem the property for the amount of the foreclosure sale bid. We agree with the Fourth District’s holding in Sun First Nat’l Bank of Orlando v. R.G.C., 348 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), that a mortgagor does not have an absolute right to redeem its property for the foreclosure sale bid. Although the mortgagor holds a right to redeem the property prior to foreclosure sale, Marriott v. Schul- [*1276] theis, 553 S…
Authorities Cited
- Collins v. Riggs, 14 Wall. 491 (U.S. 1871)