Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barnard v. FIRST NAT. BK. OF OKALOOSA CTY.
Citations: 482 So. 2d 534; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 331Docket: BF-28
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 3, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
The appeal involves Carl E. Barnard, his wife Louise Barnard, and Barnard Development Company challenging a deficiency judgment granted to the First National Bank of Okaloosa County. The dispute arose after the appellants defaulted on a $50,000 loan secured by seven residential lots they had mortgaged. At the time of the loan, the lots were appraised at $87,000. Following foreclosure proceedings, the property was sold at a foreclosure sale for $51,229.49, with the bank being the sole bidder. The trial court later issued a deficiency judgment of $9,892.56 in favor of the bank, despite expert testimony from the appellants indicating that the fair market value of the lots at the time of the foreclosure sale was $96,000. The appellants also presented earlier appraisals from the bank showing values of $74,000 and $65,000. The bank provided no substantial evidence to counter the fair market value claims, only its bid amount. The appellate court reversed the deficiency judgment, stating that the trial court abused its discretion by not adequately considering the fair market value of the property, which exceeded the debt owed. The court emphasized that the amount bid at the foreclosure sale does not conclusively determine property value and that the relationship between the bank and the purchaser (the same entity) warranted a deeper examination of the sale price's adequacy. The court further noted that the bank was under pressure to sell the lots, indicating that the bid reflected a "quick sale" value rather than the property's true fair market value. The deficiency judgment was therefore reversed.