Southern Realty & Util. Corp. v. Belmont Mtg. Corp., 34199.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 34199.,34199. |
| Citation | 186 So.2d 24 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
B.C. Fuller, Miami Beach, and Fuller Warren, Miami, for petitioner.
Ward & Ward, Miami, for respondent.
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 Sarasota1 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flagship State Bank of Jacksonville v. Drew Equipment Co.
...foreclosure sale, as between the parties, was the conclusive test of the value of the property sold. Southern Realty & Utilities Corp. v. Belmont Mortgage Corp., 186 So.2d 24 (Fla.1966); Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moscovitz, 119 Fla. 708, 161 So. 80 (1935); Etter v. State Bank of Florida, 7......
-
Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...sale price was conclusive of the value of the property upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Realty & Utilities Corporation v. Belmont Mortgage Corporation, 186 So.2d 24, and entered a deficiency decree, including interest and costs, for This interlocutory appeal is limited to ......
-
State v. Jackson
...statute whether located indoors or out. This is the type of obiter dictum which creates conflict. See Southern Realty & Utilities Corp. v. Belmont Mortgage Co., 186 So.2d 24 (Fla.1966). In Perry, the First District Court thoroughly analyzed several definitions of the word 'building'. We thi......
-
Fulton v. R. K. Cooper Const. Co.
...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 The most recent decision upon the......