Bank of America v. Estate of Hood
47 A.3d 1208
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Bank foreclosed on Estate property (house and 100 acres); sheriffs sale originally set for July 16, 2010, continued to September 17, 2010; appellants bid $255,800 at sale with outstanding debt $204,090.84.
- Estate petitioned to set aside sale on October 18, 2010 after presenting market analyses valuing property at about $562,000 and a letter of intent from Wing to purchase for $580,000.
- Trial court found sale price grossly inadequate and ordered Wing and Estate to enter binding agreement by Jan 31, 2011 and close by Feb 28, 2011.
- Appellants sought to intervene after the January 26, 2011 order; court granted intervention but denied rescission of the order.
- Appellants appeal challenging whether the sale was grossly inadequate and whether the evidence (market analyses and Wing’s price) supported that conclusion.
- Court reverses trial court, holding the sale was not grossly inadequate and that the court abused its discretion
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sale price was grossly inadequate | Estate argues price was grossly inadequate given value up to $580k | Appellants contend price undervalued the property below market value | No abuse; price not grossly inadequate; court erred in setting aside sale |
| Whether evidence on market value and Wing's offer supported gross inadequacy | Estate relied on market analyses and Wing’s bid | Appellants contend evidence improper or insufficient to show gross inadequacy | Evidence insufficient to establish gross inadequacy; trial court abused discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Ball Nat'l Bank v. Balmer, 810 A.2d 164 (Pa. Super. 2002) (gross inadequacy requires more than mere price deficiency; presumptively best price at sale)
- Fidelity Bank v. Pierson, 437 Pa. 541 (Pa. 1970) (mere inadequacy not enough to set aside a sale)
- Miners Nat’l Bank v. Bowman, 334 Pa. 534 (Pa. 1939) (ratio of disparity not always warranting set-aside; value vs. debt context matters)
- Delaware County Nat'l Bank v. Miller, 303 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1931) (very low sale price vs. market value can show gross inadequacy; disclosures affect bidding)
- Warren Pearl Works v. Rappaport, 303 Pa. 235 (Pa. 1931) (gross inadequacy shown by drastically low price for value; encumbrances influence sales)