Arsali v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
79 So. 3d 845
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Circuit court entered final mortgage foreclosure judgment for Chase; sale scheduled for May 9, 2011; Iron National Trust bid $125,300.
- Defendants moved to vacate after reaching settlement to reinstate loan; paid amount by cashier’s check May 3–4 to Chase’s attorney; sale cancellation promised but not effectuated.
- Arsali (assignee of Iron National Trust) moved to intervene; intervention granted May 24.
- On May 26 the court vacated the sale and final judgment, dismissed the case; no trial transcript of the hearing; parties concurred in the order.
- Issue concerns whether an evidentiary hearing was required to prove grossly inadequate sale price under Blue Star; court recedes from Blue Star and aligns with Brown; certifies a question about Arlt’s applicability when price adequacy is not at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether price inadequacy must be proven to vacate a foreclosure sale when price adequacy is not at issue. | Arsali relies on Arlt and Brown to permit relief on grounds other than price. | Blue Star requires gross price inadequacy as a necessary element. | Question certified; Brown may support non-price grounds; Blue Star rejected to extent inconsistent. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to vacate the sale. | Brown permits vacating based on overall equitable grounds without necessarily an evidentiary hearing. | Hearing is needed to determine gross inadequacy if relied upon. | Not required; no hearing necessary given Brown-based interpretation; but certify Arlt applicability question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 208, 123 So. 561 (Fla. 1929) (four independent grounds may justify vacating a judicial sale)
- Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575 (Fla.1966) (standing alone price inadequacy not required if grossly inadequate due to other irregularities)
- Blue Star Investments, Inc. v. Johnson, 801 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (two-part test; inadequacy plus irregularity; receded where contrary)
- Ingorvaia v. Horton, 816 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reconciles Brown and Arlt; Brown applies when other grounds exist)
- Esque Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. C.H. Consulting, Ltd., 940 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (notes Ingorvaia distinctions; due process concerns in sale irregularities)
- Grandison, Inc. v. Grandison, 930 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (cites Blue Star; analyzes grounds to set aside sale)
- Bush v. Atl. Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 785 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (cites Cueto in context of setting aside sale)
- Cueto v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 791 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoted for standard on sale irregularities and process)
- Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (predecessor statements cited by Brown)