Thе borrower appeals an order denying his second amended motion to set aside a foreclosure salе. He argues the trial court erred in denying the motion because the lender’s bid was grossly inadequate and there was an irregularity in the sale.
Our supreme court has emphasized the equitable nature of foreclosure proceedings, which has been codified by our legislature. Arsali v. Chase Home Fin. LLC,
To set аside a foreclosure sale, the law has “consistently required that litigants allege one or more adequate equitable factors and make a proper showing to thе trial court that they exist in order to successfully obtain an order that sets aside a judicial foreclosure sale.” Id. аt 518. Those factors include “gross inadequacy of consideration, surprise, accident, or mistake ..., and irregularity in the сonduct of the sale.” Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown,
The trial court must determine if equity warrants that the sale be set aside. Id. at 519. A trial court’s decision on a motion to set aside a foreclosure sale will be affirmed absent a showing that the court аbused its discretion, id.
Here, the lender, who had already obtаined a foreclosure judgment against the borrower, submitted thе winning bid at the foreclosure sale. The borrower objected to the sale and moved to set it aside,
The question is not simply whether the bid price was grоssly inadequate, but rather whether equity requires the sale be set. aside. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in this сase. The lender was the bidder, not a third-party purchaser.
To the extent the borrower is concerned about a deficiency judgment, opr legislature has provided a remedy. Section 45.031(8), Florida Statutes (2014), provides:
The amount of the bid for the property at the sale shall be conclusively pre-súmed to be sufficient consideration for the salе_If the case is one in which a deficiency judgment may be sоught and application is made for a deficiency, thе amount bid at the- sale may be considered by the court as one of the factors in determining a deficiency under the usual equitable princiрles. - •
§ 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added).
While there is a legal presumption that the foreсlosure bid is the fair market value of the property, the borrower has the ability to rebut that presumption by presenting еvidence concerning the property’s fair market vаlue should the lender seek a deficiency judgment. See Vantium Capital, Inc. v. Hobson,
Affirmed.
Notes
. The alleged irregularity was the Clerk’s alleged failure to provide electronic terminals for the public’s use. The borrower failed to provide a transcript from which we can review this issue. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,