United Community Bank (Georgia) v. Wolfe, 369 N.C. 555

In 2008 United Community Bank (Georgia) loaned the Wolfes $350,000 secured by a deed of trust; the Wolfes defaulted and the Bank foreclosed by power of sale in August 2013.
The Bank was the only bidder at the foreclosure sale and purchased the property for $275,000 based on a March 2013 independent appraisal valuing it at $275,000.
Net foreclosure proceeds left a deficiency of over $50,000; the Bank later listed and resold the property, ultimately selling it in December 2013 for $205,000.
The Bank sued to collect the deficiency; the Wolfes asserted N.C.G.S. § 45-21.36 (anti-deficiency statute) as a defense, alleging the Bank’s bid was substantially less than the property’s true value.
At summary judgment the Bank relied on the appraisal and resale history; the Wolfes submitted a joint affidavit stating their belief that the property was ‘‘fairly worth the amount of the debt’’ but offered no specific value or supporting facts.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the owners’ affidavit created a genuine factual issue; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether owners’ conclusory affidavit alleging property was "fairly worth the amount of the debt" creates a genuine issue of material fact under § 45-21.36 and Rule 56	Bank: its appraisal, purchase price, and resale evidence show the foreclosure bid was reasonable; summary judgment appropriate	Wolfes: as owners who knew the debt, their affidavit asserting the property equaled the debt raises a factual dispute about "true value"	Held: No. A conclusory affidavit without specific facts or substantial competent evidence is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Burden of proof to "allege and show" true value when creditor is purchaser at nonjudicial sale	Bank: once it presents substantial evidence of value, borrower must forecast substantial competent contrary evidence	Wolfes: their personal knowledge and status as owners make their opinion competent evidence	Held: Borrower must forecast substantial competent evidence (e.g., appraisal, resale data, other admissible facts); mere statutory-language recitation or unsupported opinion fails.

Dep’t of Transp. v. M.M. Fowler, Inc., 361 N.C. 1 (2006) (landowner competency to testify in condemnation context)
N.C. State Highway Comm’n v. Helderman, 285 N.C. 645 (1974) (competency and opinion testimony in valuation disputes)
Wachovia Realty Invs. v. Hous., Inc., 292 N.C. 93 (1977) ("true value" is material when anti-deficiency defense is asserted; resale considered as evidence)
High Point Bank & Tr. v. Highmark Props., LLC, 368 N.C. 301 (2015) (calculation of deficiency under § 45-21.36 uses true value rather than foreclosure bid)
Ussery v. Branch Banking & Tr., 368 N.C. 325 (2015) (standard of review and substantial evidence definition for summary judgment)
Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366 (1982) (opposing party must produce affirmative proof when movant presents supporting materials)
Lexington State Bank v. Miller, 137 N.C. App. 748 (2000) (owner affidavit stating property was worth more than bid is an unsupported allegation absent specific facts)
Richmond Mortg. & Loan Corp. v. Wachovia Bank & Tr., 210 N.C. 29 (1936) (historical rule that creditor’s bid is not conclusive of property value)