Jimmy Britt Builder, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank
307 Ga. App. 663
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jimmy Britt Builder, Inc. defaulted on a SunTrust construction loan secured by two residential lots in Stonewater Creek, Hoschton, GA.
- SunTrust foreclosed under the deed to secure debt; SunTrust was the sole bidder and purchased the Property for $294,485.
- At foreclosure, one lot was vacant and the other had an uncompleted, vandalized house; construction had ceased about a year before sale.
- A confirmation hearing focused on the true market value of the uncompleted house; the vacant lot value was agreed at $30,000.
- SunTrust’s appraiser valued the uncompleted house at $264,485 with a 15% builder/buyer risk discount; Jimmy Britt’s appraiser valued it at $307,000 (no 15% discount).
- The trial court credited SunTrust’s valuation and the 15% discount, and confirmed the foreclosure sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15% builder/buyer risk discount is substantiated. | Britt argues the 15% discount is unsubstantiated and irrational. | SunTrust asserts the discount is supported by the appraiser’s methodology and market conditions. | Yes; the discount is supported and the court did not err in accepting it. |
| Whether the trial court properly valued the uncompleted house over Britt’s appraisal. | Britt contends his value should control; SunTrust’s value is unreliable. | SunTrust’s expert’s methodology and findings are credible; the court acts as finder of fact. | Yes; the trial court reasonably credited SunTrust’s valuation. |
| Whether the trial court used the correct legal theory for confirmation of the sale. | Peachtree Mtg. Corp.'s prima facie value language alone should not govern. | Order read as a whole shows reliance on competing appraisals, not sole reliance on sale price. | Yes; the order complies with the applicable law and evidentiary requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Statesboro Blues Dev. v. Regions Bank, 301 Ga.App. 851 (2010) (true market value question; defer to trial court’s factual findings)
- Mundy Mill Dev. v. ACR Property Svcs., 306 Ga.App. 730 (2010) (confirms deferential standard for appraisal credibility)
- Blue Marlin Dev. v. Branch Banking, etc., Co., 302 Ga.App. 120 (2010) (valuation testimony weight to trial court)
- Boring v. State Bank, etc., Co., 307 Ga.App. 93 (2010) (expert methodology not double-checked; defer to trial court)
- Peachtree Mtg. Corp. v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 143 Ga.App. 17 (1977) (prima facie market value; may not rely solely on sale price)
- Chamblee Hotels v. Chesterfield Mtg. Investors, 287 Ga.App. 342 (2007) (scope of appellate review in appraisal-weight determinations)
- The Hudson Trio, LLC v. Buckhead Community Bank, 304 Ga.App. 324 (2010) (risk and profit deductions supported by market testimony)
- Fayette Promenade v. Branch Banking, etc., Co., 258 Ga.App. 323 (2002) (allowable deductions for risk and profit in appraisal)
- Washington v. Harrison, 299 Ga.App. 335 (2009) (lay vs expert testimony standards in valuation)
- Hoover, etc., Dev. Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 149 Ga.App. 855 (1979) (spectrum of expert-derived opinions and admissibility)
- REL and Assocs. v. FDIC, 304 Ga.App. 33 (2010) (valuation evidence sufficiency; defer to trial court)