Cаrtersville Developers, LLC, appeals from the Bartow County Superior Court’s order confirming a foreclosure sаle by Georgia Bank & Trust. Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard when confirming the foreclosurе, we must vacate its order and remand this case for further proceedings.
“At a confirmation hearing, the judge sits as the trier of fact and his findings and conclusions have the effect of a jury verdict; therefore, the trial judge’s findings should not be disturbed by this cоurt if there is any evidence to support them.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Wilson v. Metro. Fed. S & L Assn.,
During the confirmation hearing, Cartersville Developers argued that it was inappropriate for the superior court to consider the $10,000 foreclosure discount and that the minimum value for the units established by the evidence was approximately $140,000. The trial court rejected this argument and concluded that it was obligated only to dеtermine if its “judicial conscience was shocked” by any disparity between the foreclosure sale price аnd the true market value.
Cartersville Developers asserts in this appeal that the trial court erred by confirming the sale based on an appraisal that discounted the value of the properties by $10,000 because they were in foreclosure. We agree.
The standard to be applied by a trial court in an action by a lender to confirm a foreclosure sale differs from that used in an equity action filed by the borrower to set aside a foreclosure sаle.
Grizzle v. Fed. Land Bank of Columbia,
In an action brought by a borrower to set aside a foreclosure sede,
[inadequacy of price paid upon the sale of property under power will not of itself and standing alone be sufficient reason for setting aside the sale. It is only when the price realized is grossly inadequate and the sale is accompanied by either fraud, mistake, misapprehension, surprise or other circumstances which might authorize a finding that such circumstances contributed to bringing about the inadequacy of price that such a sale may be set aside by a court of equity.
*377
(Citations omitted.)
Giordano v. Stubbs,
A trial court cannоt confirm a foreclosure sale, on the other hand, “unless it is satisfied that the property so sold brought its true market value.” (Citation and footnote omitted.)
Wilson v. Prudential Industrial Properties,
Based on this definition, this court has previously found that a trial court erred by confirming a foreclosure sale based upon “evidence of the ‘quick sale’ value of the subject property because such a valuation does not reflect the price that would be obtained in a sale under the usual market conditions.” (Citatiоn omitted.)
Gutherie v. Ford Equip. Leasing Co.,
The trial court relied upon this court’s opinion in
Darby & Assoc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.,
[t]he purpose of confirmation hearings is to establish that the sale was fairly conducted and that any disparity between value and sale price, if it exists, is not such as to shock the judicial conscience. Brooks v. Bast,242 Md. 350 (219 A2d 84 , 15 ALR3d 1265, 1271) [(1966)]; Giordano, [supra].
Id. at 79 (1).
Wе find that the trial court erred in applying this language to confirm a judicial sale when no construction of the evidence would authorize a finding that the sale price was at least the true market value of the property. This language was impliedly overruled in
Ivey-Matherly Constr. Co.,
supra, where we held that the rule set out by the Georgia Supreme Court in
Giordano,
supra, should not be aрplied in proceedings to confirm a foreclosure sale, but only in equity cases to set aside a foreclоsure sale.
Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard when detеrmining whether to confirm the foreclosure sale, we vacate its order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Wheeler,
supra,
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.