PNC Bank, N.A. v. DisputeSuite.com, LLC
8:13-cv-02461
| M.D. Fla. | Sep 26, 2016Background
- PNC Bank sued DisputeSuite.com, LLC and a guarantor on multiple obligations; parties settled and then defendants defaulted on the settlement payment.
- Court entered a stipulated and agreed final judgment directing a marshal sale of mortgaged property on Regency Park Blvd, but PNC instead completed an arms-length third-party short sale in November 2015 for $78,451.56.
- Parties stipulate the short-sale price equals the property’s fair market value.
- The stipulated final judgment secured a total debt of $487,596.58.
- PNC sought an amended/deficiency judgment reflecting the short sale proceeds and requested defendants be compelled to provide a Florida Rule Form 1.977 fact information sheet as required by the prior judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and amount of deficiency judgment | Short sale price ($78,451.56) is FMV; debt is $487,596.58 so a deficiency exists and should be entered for the difference plus interest | No contrary evidence; parties stipulated to FMV (no equitable defense asserted) | Granted: deficiency of $410,171.89 plus statutory post-judgment interest from April 30, 2016 |
| Compel completion of fact information sheet (Form 1.977) | Final judgment required defendants to complete and deliver the form; defendants have not complied | (No substantive response in the record/stipulation) | Granted: defendants ordered to comply with paragraph 16 and produce the fact information sheet |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Circle Bar Ranch, Inc., 450 So.2d 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (mortgagee entitled to deficiency judgment when foreclosure sale insufficient)
- Hy Kom Dev. Co. v. FDIC, 603 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (deficiency judgments governed by equitable principles)
- Sheneman v. Barnett, 53 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1951) (court must apply established equitable principles when deciding deficiency issues)
- Empire Dev. Group, LLC v. Liberty Bank, 87 So.3d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (deficiency amount determined by subtracting FMV from total secured debt)
- Chidnese v. McCollem, 695 So.2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (secured party bears burden to prove FMV is less than debt)
- Trustees of Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas v. Indico Corp., 401 So.2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (sale price can establish fair market value)
- Fara Mfg. Co., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Miami, 366 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (in absence of contrary evidence, sale price may reflect FMV)
- Flagship State Bank of Jacksonville v. Drew Equip. Co., 392 So.2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (courts may consider sale fairness, arms-length nature, fraud, or wrongful conduct when deciding deficiency relief)
- FDIC v. Morley, 915 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1990) (choice-of-law: Florida substantive law governs deficiency issues in diversity cases)