In this mоrtgage foreclosure action, U.S. Bank appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate a foreclosure sale.
In 2012, the triаl court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in the amount of $118,063.26 in favor of U.S. Bank. After two scheduled foreclosure sales were can-celled, the Palm Beach County circuit court rescheduled the foreclosure sale for April 16, 2013. On April 10, 2013, U.S. Bank sent its counsel instructions to bid on thе property at the scheduled sale in amounts up to $51,000. However, due to the failure of counsel’s newly hired clerk to follow the usual prоcedures for providing notification and bidding instructions for the upcoming sale to counsel’s Post Judgment Foreclosure Supervisor (“Supervisor”), сounsel failed to bid on the property on behalf of U.S. Bank at the April 16, 2013 sale. A third party purchaser, appel-lee Chris Greaves, bought the property at the sale for $35,200.
At the hearing on the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale, the purchaser’s counsel conceded thаt U.S. Bank met the requirement of demonstrating a mistake, but nevertheless maintained that U.S. Bank also needed to show that the foreclosure sale price was grossly inadequate. Counsel for U.S. Bank disagreed and cited this court’s en banc decision in Arsali v. Chase Home Finance, LLC,
In response to U.S. Bank’s argument, the purchaser’s counsel seemed to suggest that this court was “unsure” of its decision in Arsali I, since we certified the issue to the Florida Suprеme Court. The purchaser’s counsel also attempted to distinguish Arsali I, claiming that Arsali I presented “a different set of facts because the price wasn’t really the issue,” whereas in this case the inadequacy of the price was “obviously an issue” because U.S. Bank’s motion primarily argued the inadequacy of the sales price.
The trial court orally denied the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale and later enterеd a written order overruling the objection to the sale. U.S. Bank appealed the order.
On appeal, U.S. Bank argues that the trial court grossly abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the foreclosure sale where there was undisputed evidence— and a concessiоn by the purchaser — of a mistake on the part of U.S. Bank’s counsel. We agree.
The standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion tо set aside a foreclosure sale is whether the trial court grossly abused its discretion. Long Beach Mortg. Corp. v. Bebble,
In Arsali v. Chase Home Finance LLC,
Finding that no conflict exists between Brown and Arlt, the supreme court reemphasized that a judicial sale may, on а proper showing, be vacated and set aside on any or all equitable grounds. Id. at 515-18. The supreme court therefore approvеd of the result in Arsali I to the extent that we affirmed the trial court’s order vacating the judicial sale. Id. at 519. But the supreme court disapproved of our attempt to reconcile Brown and Arlt as establishing two separate tests that should be applied in actions to set aside a judicial sаle, depending upon whether inadequacy of the bid price was at issue. Id. at 514-17, 520.
In light of the supreme court’s decision in Arsali II, it is now abundantly clear that proof of an inadequate bid price is not a necessary requirement in an action to set aside a judicial foreclosure sale. Instead, a judicial sale may be vаcated on a showing of any equitable ground.
One such equitable ground for vacating a judicial sale is mistake. A mistake sufficient to set aside a judicial sale is shown where the owner became deprived of an opportunity to bid at the sale when, because of inadvertenсe or a mistake, an attorney who was to represent the owner there for that purpose was not present. Kerrigan v. Mosher,
Here, the purchaser is bound by his counsel’s concession that U.S. Bank was deprived of an opportunity to bid at the sale as a result of a mistake. See Holub v. Holub,
The breakdown in communication at the law firm representing U.S. Bank is the type of mistake that can justify vacating the foreclosure sale. See Long Beach,
In sum, because the purchaser’s counsel conceded below that U.S. Bank established a mistake and his only argument was that the sale price was not grossly inadequate, the trial court grossly abused its discretion in denying the motiоn to vacate. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to grant the motion to vacate.
Reversed and Remanded.
Notes
. Because the order is appealable as a discrete final order, we have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). See Popescu v. Laguna Master Assn,