Bank of America, N.A. v. Seamus P. O'Kelly, Jennifer S. O'Kelly and State of Vermont Department of Taxes and Sandra J. Lockerby, 194 A.3d 746

Property foreclosed by judicial order in Dec. 2015; six-month statutory redemption period expired June 2016, after which property to be sold to highest bidder.
Bank of America organized a foreclosure sale Dec. 8, 2016, retaining an auctioneer and a representative; Bank emailed a bid package to the auctioneer on the morning of the sale.
Bank’s representative failed to arrive in time and could not place the Bank’s bid in person; the auctioneer placed a bid on the Bank’s behalf.
Sandra Lockerby was the sole in-person bidder and bid roughly one-third of the Bank’s intended amount; the trial court ultimately confirmed Lockerby’s bid and refused to accept the auctioneer’s bid for the Bank.
Bank moved to void the sale and sought a new sale; trial court confirmed Lockerby’s sale and Bank appealed, arguing the court failed to exercise its discretion to consider excusable neglect and commercial reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Lockerby / Trial Court)	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by confirming sale without weighing excusable neglect for Bank rep’s absence	Bank: Court should decline confirmation because rep’s failure to appear was excusable neglect and auctioneer bid should be treated in light of that	Lockerby/Ct: In-person bidder’s presence supports confirmation; auctioneer’s bid on Bank’s behalf was improper under prior local practice	Court: Reversed and remanded — trial court effectively withheld discretion; must reconsider confirmation exercising discretion and considering relevant equities
Whether commercial reasonableness of a low in-person bid is a proper factor in confirmation	Bank: Court should consider commercial unreasonableness of Lockerby’s low bid (one-third of Bank’s bid) when assessing fairness/integrity	Lockerby/Ct: Presence of in-person bidder sufficient; court relied on in-person bidding practice	Court: Commercial reasonableness may be considered where evidence suggests sale’s integrity/fairness is implicated; remand to consider this factor and statutory/ judgment requirements

Quenneville v. Buttolph, 833 A.2d 1263 (Vt. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
O’Rourke v. Lunde, 104 A.3d 92 (Vt. 2014) (preservation rule for appellate issues)
HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. McAllister, 182 A.3d 593 (Vt. 2018) (trial court’s discretion in confirming foreclosure sales; factors relevant to sale integrity)