Farmer v. Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc.
336 P.3d 160
Alaska2014Background
- Robert J. Farmer purchased Wolverine Lodge in 1992; debt secured by a deed of trust to Peggy Jo Watson. Farmer later defaulted; Watson initiated nonjudicial foreclosure in 2012.
- Trustee recorded notice of default and notice of sale; initial sale set for July 25 and publicly noticed (mail/personal service and publication).
- The sale was postponed six times (through announcements on each scheduled sale date); Farmer did not receive individual re-notice and claims he and his counsel did not know of the final sale date (December 27, 2012).
- Farmer repeatedly requested the cure amount and received it three times; he presented no documentary evidence that he could actually cure before the sale.
- Watson purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $120,000; Farmer sued, challenging lack of re-notice, alleged misleading regarding cure/time to cure, and that the sale price amounted to a forfeiture.
- Superior court granted summary judgment to Watson; Supreme Court affirms, holding (1) no equitable or constitutional re-notice requirement for postponements within 12 months, (2) cure amounts were timely provided, and (3) sale price was not grossly inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farmer) | Defendant's Argument (Watson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equity or due process required re-notice after each postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale | Trustee must provide actual re-notice after each postponement; lack of re-notice violated due process | Statute requires re-notice only if postponed >12 months; public announcement of postponement suffices; equity need not impose re-notice | No. Equity does not require re-notice; public announcement satisfies due process (consistent with precedent) |
| Whether Farmer was misled about the cure amount or time to cure | Farmer relied on Watson’s representations and lacked a reasonable opportunity to cure; cure amount changed | Cure amount was provided promptly on each request; Farmer had notice and failed to cure or demonstrate ability to cure | No. Cure amounts were timely provided when requested; no evidence Farmer could or did cure |
| Whether the foreclosure sale price was a forfeiture (grossly inadequate) | $120,000 sale price was inadequate given over $500,000 paid and improvements; alleged forfeiture | Sale price was ~80% of Farmer’s own bankruptcy valuation and not grossly inadequate | No. Price (80% of Farmer’s valuation) is not grossly inadequate; sale not a forfeiture |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Farmer contends factual disputes (notice, ability to cure) preclude summary judgment | Watson contends no genuine material fact: statutory compliance and lack of proof Farmer could cure | Yes. Summary judgment for Watson affirmed; Farmer offered no admissible evidence creating a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostrow v. Higgins, 722 P.2d 936 (Alaska 1986) (postponement announced publicly gives notice reasonably calculated to reach interested parties)
- Rosenberg v. Smidt, 727 P.2d 778 (Alaska 1986) (heightened notice required when initial notice returned unclaimed; balance of interests justifies implication of due diligence)
- Young v. Embley, 143 P.3d 936 (Alaska 2006) (lender must provide cure figure at a reasonable time before foreclosure when requested)
- Hagberg v. Alaska Nat’l Bank, 585 P.2d 559 (Alaska 1978) (preliminary relief warranted where cure amount provided only days before sale)
- Baskurt v. Beal, 101 P.3d 1041 (Alaska 2004) (sale price inadequacy invalidates sale only if grossly shocking or coupled with other irregularities)
- BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1994) (foreclosure sales commonly produce prices below full market value; such results do not alone show impropriety)