In these consolidated appeals, Vantium Capital, Inc. (“Vantium”) argues that the trial court erred in denying its claims for deficiency judgments resulting from mortgage foreclosure sales. We agree and reverse.
A final judgment of foreclosure was entered against each of the appellees/debt-ors. Judgment was entered against appel-lee William S. Hobson, Jr., in the amount of $199,936.39, and the Hobson property was sold at a foreclosure sale for $162,700. Judgment was entered against appellee Marcio Barretto Cordiero in the amount of $275,989.88, and the Cordiero property was sold at a foreclosure sale for $21,100. Judgment was entered against appellee Stanley Bengelsdorf in the amount of $199,936.39, and the Bengelsdorf property was sold at a foreclosure sale for $21,100.
Vantium was substituted in each foreclosure action as the party plaintiff and moved for deficiency judgments against the debtors. The trial court held a single hearing to address Vantium’s deficiency claims in all three cases. None of the debtors appeared at the hearing. Vantium established the foreclosure sale amounts for each property. It also proffered affidavits of appraisers as to the fair market value of the Cordiero and Bengelsdorf properties. The Bengelsdorf property had an appraised value of $20,000, and the Cordiero property had an appraised value of $47,000.
The trial court denied all the motions for deficiency judgment, reasoning that Vanti-um established only the bid price at each foreclosure sale. The court further ruled that it would not accept the affidavits of the appraisers in lieu of live testimony.
The decision whether to grant or deny a deficiency judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Nonvest Bank Owatonna, N.A. v. Millard,
Where it is clear that the total debt secured by a lien on property is more than the fair market value of that property at the date of the foreclosure sale, the granting of a deficiency decree is the rule rather than the exception. Ahmad v. Cobb Comer, Inc.,
“The secured party has the initial burden of proving that the fair market value of the property was less than the total debt determined by the final judgment.” Chidnese v. McCollem,
In this case, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Vantium’s deficiency claims against the debtors. The court denied the deficiency claims, reasoning that Vantium established only the foreclosure sale price of each property. In doing so, the trial court implied that there was insufficient evidence of fair market value. However, the trial court’s ruling ignored the legal presumption that a property’s foreclosure sale price equals its fair market value. Accordingly, once Vantium established the foreclosure sale price for each of the properties, the burden shifted to the debtors to present evidence that the fair market value was different from the foreclosure sale price. The debtors did not appear at the hearing, let alone rebut
Because Vantium established the foreclosure sale price for each property at issue and because the debtors did not present any counter-evidence, Vantium was not obligated to produce any further evidence of fair market value. Nonetheless, although not required to do so, Vanti-um offered appraisers’ affidavits concerning the fair market value of the Cordiero and Bengelsdorf properties. The trial court, however, sua sponte rejected the appraisers’ affidavits as hearsay, without any objection raised by an opposing party. Because there was no objection from any opposing party, the trial court should have considered the appraisers’ affidavits offered by Vantium. • See In re Eriksson,
In sum, the trial court did not properly apply the burden-shifting framework of Florida law on deficiency judgments. Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the claims for deficiency without any valid legal or equitable reasons for doing so. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to enter deficiency judgments in favor of Vantium.
Reversed and Remanded.