Mody v. California Federal Bank, 99-1864.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1864.,99-1864. |
| Citation | 747 So.2d 1016 |
| Parties | Suresh MODY and Richard Cava, Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gelb & Spatz and Carl A. Spatz, Miami, for appellants.
Robert Barnett, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and GREEN, JJ.
Suresh Mody and Richard Cava ("Trustees") appeal the trial court's Order vacating the sale of foreclosed property and ordering a resale of the property on the grounds that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly inadequate and that said inadequacy resulted from a mistake by California Federal Bank ("California Federal"). We reverse.
On February 19, 1999, California Federal's bidding agent attended a foreclosure sale with the intention of bidding up to $239,200 on the subject property. At the same foreclosure sale, California Federal's bidding agent bid on three other pieces of property. However, the bidding agent missed the Clerk's call of the sale on the subject property and failed to make any bid on said property because he had been furnished a different case name. Ultimately, the Trustees were the highest bidders for the subject property with a bid of $202,000.
California Federal subsequently filed an objection to the sale and moved to vacate the sale. On May 27, 1999, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. At the evidentiary hearing, California Federal argued that its bidding agent had failed to bid on the property by mistake and that Trustees' bid was grossly inadequate. With regards to the value of the foreclosed property, the trial court was presented with several different value figures. Trustees' expert claimed that the property's value was $225,000. California Federal's expert claimed that the property was worth $300,000. The property's assessed value for real estate tax purposes was $252,612. On June 22, 1999, the trial court entered an Order vacating the foreclosure sale of the property and ordering a new sale. In relevant part, the Order states:
The court has thoroughly reviewed the reports of the appraisers and evaluated their testimony, including their demeanor while testifying. Because they used different comparables in reaching their opinions of value, it has been difficult for the Court to place a precise dollar value on the land sold. However, the Court is convinced, and so finds, that the purchase price at the sale, $202,000, was sufficiently low enough, and the difference between the land value and sale price sufficiently great enough, to persuade the Court that, when coupled with the mistake or inadvertence demonstrated by the evidence, constitutes sufficient grounds for this Court to grant equitable relief in order to do justice and prevent the wrong result.
Trustees appealed to this Court.
In order to vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court must find: (1) that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly inadequate; and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale. See Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966); Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co., 91 So.2d 307, 311 (Fla.1956). As to the first requirement, the Florida Supreme Court has found that a foreclosure sale bid amounting to 70% of the value of the foreclosed property is not a startling inadequacy. Maule Indus., Inc.,91 So.2d at 311. Likewise, this Court has similarly found that a foreclosure sale bid amounting to 72% of the foreclosed property's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arsali v. Chase Home Fin., LLC
...at 219 (quoting Cueto v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 791 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (in turn quoting Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016, 1017–18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999))). The trial court in Blue Star had vacated a foreclosure sale because the parties “had agreed to extend the date ......
-
Ingorvaia v. Horton
...v. Johnson, 801 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Cueto v. Mfrs. & Traders Co., 791 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We also find Horton's argument more persuasive because there is nothing in Arlt to suggest that the test set forth ther......
-
Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA
...that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale. ”) (quoting Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016, 1017–18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ) (emphasis added).1 No order was entered on Salazar's motion to set aside the final judgment.Six months later, ......
-
Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan
...and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity in the sale.” Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016, 1017–18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966)) (emphasis added). At a minimum, then, an objection to a fo......