Fara Manufacturing Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

366 So. 2d 164, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14137
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 16, 1979
DocketNo. 78-388
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 366 So. 2d 164 (Fara Manufacturing Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fara Manufacturing Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 366 So. 2d 164, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14137 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

The defendants to a mortgage foreclosure on real property appeal a deficiency judgment against them. The point presented on appeal urges error because there was no evidence before the trial judge of the fair market value of the property.

The rule is clearly that the price bid, and for which realty is sold, at a mortgage foreclosure sale, although conclusive with regard to the efficacy of sale in absence of timely objection thereto, is not necessarily conclusive with regard to the value of property sold on application for a deficiency decree. Weinstein v. Park Manor Construction Company, 166 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). See also Fulton v. R. K. Cooper Construction Company, 208 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), and Jonas v. Bar-Jam Corp., 170 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). There is no Florida case holding that in the absence of evidence of the fair market value that a deficiency decree may not be entered. The proper rule is that upon the introduction of the evidence of the sale price, the defendant has the burden of going forward and presenting such evidence as he shall find proper concerning the fair market value of the property. In the absence of such evidence, the trial court has the power to act upon the assumption that the sale price reflects the fair market value.

In the present instance, the defendants had full notice of plaintiffs’ motion for deficiency judgment and every opportunity to proceed with such evidence as they thought proper. Inasmuch as no evidence of fair market value was introduced, other than the sale price, the deficiency judgment was properly entered.1

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vantium Capital, Inc. v. Hobson
137 So. 3d 497 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
First Union v. Goodwin Beach Partnership
644 So. 2d 1361 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Sullivan v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
634 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Addison Mortgage Co. v. Weit
613 So. 2d 104 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Liberty Bus. Credit Corp. v. Schaffer/Dunadry
589 So. 2d 451 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Community Bank of Homestead v. Valois
570 So. 2d 300 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Morley
915 F.2d 1517 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Morley
915 F.2d 1517 (Third Circuit, 1990)
Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
566 So. 2d 1296 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Miami Beach v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corp.
414 So. 2d 219 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Metropolitan Health Care Services, Inc. v. University Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
389 So. 2d 281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 So. 2d 164, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fara-manufacturing-co-v-first-federal-savings-loan-assn-fladistctapp-1979.