Raul FERNANDEZ, Appellant,
v.
SUBURBAN COASTAL CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Etc., Conrad Edwin Iobst and Sandra King Iobst, His Wife, and North Broward Hospital District, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*71 Charles A. Goff, of Casoria, Goff & Raab, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James O. Murphy, Jr., of Byrd & Murphy, Fort Lauderdale, John M. McCormick, Orlando, for appellеe-Suburban Coastal Corp.
Ellen Mills Gibbs, and Conrad and Sandra Iobst, in pro. per.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 25, 1986.
DOWNEY, Judge.
After entry of a final judgment of foreclosure the property was advertised for sale on March 1, 1985. The mortgagee, Appellee Suburban Coastal Corporation, a New Jersey corрoration, sent bidding instructions to the Abstract Company of Broward County to attend the public sаle and bid up to the extent of the mortgage balance of $54,300.
On the day of the sale, the abstract company failed to attend the sale and, as a result, the property was sold to the only bidder at the sale, Appellant Raul Fernandez, a disinterested third party, who bid $100. On March 1, 1985, the mortgagee moved to set aside the sale to appellant аnd argued that the sale of the property for $100 was unconscionably inadequate. Thе court noted the large disparity between the bid and the value of the property, whiсh was determined to be $54,300, and found that the abstract company's failure to attend the sаle was a mistake. The trial court ordered that the clerk's sale be set aside and thе certificate of sale vacated.
By this appeal appellant seeks reversal of the trial court's order setting aside the judicial sale, reinstatement of thе certificate of sale to appellant, and an order issuing the certificate of sale to the appellant.
It is a long standing rule that inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to set aside a judicial sale. Fincham v. Fincham,
As indiсated above, the appellee diligently prepared to protect its interests by employing an abstract company to attend the sale and bid up to $54,300 for the property. Unfortunately, the abstract company, having received two other foreclosures from appellee scheduled for March 4 and 5, failed to note that this sale was scheduled for Friday, March 1, and therefore inadvertently failed to attend the sаle. This court held in Fincham v. Fincham,
Thus, we have a grossly inadequate sales price resulting from inadvertence or mistake on the part of one involved in the sale. Black's Law Dictionary states that a mistake "may аrise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence." Black's Law Dictionary, 903 (5th ed. 1985).
Finally, we would point out that we are reviewing a decision of the trial court that lies in the area of its broad discretion, one whiсh requires a showing of a gross abuse of discretion to reverse. Doctors Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison,
The precise circumstances constituting excusable neglect, mistake or inadvertence are not well defined and therefore the facts of each case are of singular importance in determining whethеr or not relief under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b) should be granted... . In addition, it is the duty of the trial court, not the appеllate courts to make the determination of whether or not the facts constitute nеglect, mistake, or inadvertence sufficient to excuse compliance with the rulеs ... The discretion reposed in the trial judge by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 is of the broadest scope and in order to reverse a judge's ruling thereunder, there must be a showing of gross abuse of discretion. (Citatiоns omitted.)
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the order appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concurs.
DELL, J., dissents with opinion.
DELL, Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority. I think that John Crescent, Inc. v. Schwartz,