TD Bank, N.A. v. Graubard
172 So. 3d 550
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- TD Bank, N.A. obtained a final judgment of foreclosure in May 2013 against Robert M. Graubard fixing the debt at $241,554.86 and expressly reserving jurisdiction to enter deficiency judgments.
- The property was sold at public auction to TD Bank and a certificate of title issued; Graubard did not appeal the foreclosure judgment or sale.
- On September 16, 2013, TD Bank filed a Deficiency Motion seeking the judgment amount plus post-judgment interest, minus the property’s fair market value (alleged by TD Bank to be $160,000), to compute a deficiency.
- At the January 15, 2014 hearing TD Bank presented an appraiser who testified to $160,000 value; Graubard reserved rebuttal valuation evidence but presented none before the court granted Graubard’s motion for involuntary dismissal.
- The trial court ruled TD Bank had not proved the debt amount because TD Bank did not reintroduce the earlier Final Judgment into evidence; TD Bank appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lender must reintroduce the earlier Final Judgment at a deficiency hearing in the same case to prove the debt amount | TD Bank: No; the foreclosure judgment already fixed the debt and the deficiency proceeding is a continuation of that case | Graubard: TD Bank failed to prove the debt amount because it did not reintroduce the Final Judgment into evidence | Court: Held lender need not reintroduce the Final Judgment; court will take judicial notice of its own earlier judgment in the same case |
| Whether a deficiency motion is a continuation of the foreclosure action and therefore governed by the foreclosure judgment | TD Bank: Deficiency is a continuation and enforces the foreclosure judgment | Graubard: Contended continuation is limited to service/jurisdiction issues (citing Timmers) | Court: Deficiency proceedings are a continuation of foreclosure; court retained jurisdiction and could enforce the prior judgment |
| Whether TD Bank presented prima facie evidence of fair market value and entitlement to a deficiency judgment | TD Bank: Appraiser testimony established fair market value, shifting burden to debtor for rebuttal | Graubard: Moved for involuntary dismissal arguing TD Bank failed to prove debt amount | Court: Remanded — TD Bank’s valuation evidence was admissible and, because the debt was fixed by the Final Judgment, Graubard should have been allowed to present rebuttal before dismissal |
| Whether a party must ask the court to take judicial notice of its own prior orders | TD Bank: No request required; courts take notice of their own records | Graubard: Argued TD Bank should have requested the court to take notice | Court: No affirmative request required; courts judicially notice their own case records |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 165 So.3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (deficiency claim is continuation of foreclosure)
- L.A.D. Prop. Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 19 So.3d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (motion for deficiency continues foreclosure proceedings)
- Ahmad v. Cobb Corner, Inc., 762 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (final judgment fixes validity, priority, and extent of the debt)
- Chidnese v. McCollem, 695 So.2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (no additional proof of debt needed after foreclosure judgment; lender must prove fair market value)
- NAFH Nat’l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So.3d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (deficiency proceeding enforces prior foreclosure judgment)
- Vantium Capital, Inc. v. Hobson, 137 So.3d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (lender must present fair market value or sale price; burden shifts to debtor)
- Coral Gables Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Whitewater Enters., Inc., 614 So.2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (deficiency decree generally appropriate where judgment debt exceeds property value)
- Elmore v. Florida Power & Light Co., 895 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (courts take judicial notice of their own records)
Decision: Reversed and remanded for a new deficiency hearing and entry of an appropriate deficiency judgment to the extent a deficit exists; debtor may present rebuttal valuation evidence.