Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 29, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0162

Lower Tribunal No. 18-28238

________________

Enviropower Renewable Inc.,

Appellant,

vs.

William Ritger, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge.

Slusher & Rosenblum, P.A., and Jonathan S. Glickman, Mahra 

Sarofsky, and Jeremy E. Slusher (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

Sundarsingh Law, P.L., and Mandell Sundarsingh (West Palm Beach), 

for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

LINDSEY, J.
2

Appellant Enviropower Renewable Inc. appeals a deficiency judgment 

in favor of Appellee EPR 10, LLC. The deficiency judgment was entered 

without consideration of the fair market value of two patents that served as 

collateral because the trial court concluded that Enviropower had waived an 

evidentiary hearing on that issue. Because we find that Enviropower did not 

waive an evidentiary hearing for purposes of a deficiency judgment, we 

reverse. 

I. BACKGROUND

This case began as an action for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud 

brought by shareholders and investors. Most plaintiffs settled and formed 

EPR for the purpose of enforcing a Settlement Agreement. Under the 

Settlement Agreement, Enviropower had until November 2019 to pay EPR 

$1 million plus interest. If Enviropower did not pay, EPR would be entitled 

to an ex-parte judgment of $1.5 million. To secure payment and 

performance, the parties executed a Security Agreement under which 

Enviropower granted EPR a lien on two patents (the “Collateral”). 

Enviropower defaulted, and EPR moved for a $1.5 million judgment 

and to foreclose on the Collateral. The trial court ultimately entered a final 

judgment of foreclosure and ordered the sale of the Collateral. EPR 

published the notice of the sale in the Daily Business Review, and the 
3

Collateral was sold on Miami-Dade County’s foreclosure auction website. 

EPR was the highest bidder and purchased the Collateral for $2,100. Before 

the certificate of title was issued, Enviropower objected, arguing the sale was 

not commercially reasonable as required by section 679.610, Florida 

Statutes (2021). After a hearing, the trial court overruled Enviropower’s 

objection and ordered issuance of the certificate of title. 

After purchasing the Collateral, EPR moved for a deficiency judgment 

in the amount of $1.5 million. Enviropower objected, arguing that the trial 

court could only enter a deficiency judgment after conducting an evidentiary 

hearing on the Collateral’s fair market value. After a hearing, the court 

determined that Enviropower had expressly waived an evidentiary hearing 

under the following provision in the Security Agreement:

5.3 Waivers. Debtors, to the greatest extent not prohibited by 

applicable law, hereby (i) agree that they will not invoke, claim or 

assert the benefit of any rule of law or statute now or hereafter in 

effect (including, without limitation, any right to prior notice or 

judicial hearing in connection with Secured Party’s possession, 

custody or disposition of any Collateral or any appraisal, 

valuation, stay, extension, moratorium or redemption law), or 

take or omit to take any other action, that would or could 

reasonably be expected to have the effect of delaying, impeding 

or preventing the exercise of any rights and remedies in respect 

of the Collateral, the absolute sale of any of the Collateral or the 

possession thereof by any purchaser at any sale thereof, and 

waive the benefit of all such laws and further agree that they will 

not hinder, delay or impede the execution of any power granted 

hereunder to Secured Party, but that they will permit the 
4

execution of every such power as though no such laws were in 

effect . . . .

 In calculating the amount of the deficiency, the court added interest, 

costs, and expenses to the principle and subtracted $2,100 for the Collateral 

for a grand total of $1,756,942.38. Enviropower filed a motion for rehearing, 

which the court denied. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

 An order granting a deficiency judgment is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion, Vantium Cap., Inc. v. Hobson, 137 So. 3d 497, 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2014), but a trial court’s contract interpretation is reviewed de novo. Ferk 

Fam., LP v. Frank, 240 So. 3d 826, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).1

Article 9 of the UCC, codified in Chapter 679 of the Florida Statutes, 

provides that “a secured party may sell . . . or otherwise dispose of any or all 

the collateral[.]” § 679.610(1). Once a secured party sells the collateral, “the 

obligor is liable for any deficiency.” § 679.608(1)(d).

1

 Enviropower also challenges the commercial reasonableness of the sale. 

We do not address the merits because there are no transcripts of this hearing 

for our review. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). But even where a sale is not commercially 

reasonable, a secured creditor is nevertheless entitled to a deficiency 

judgment in an amount of the total debt minus the fair market value of the 

collateral. See, e.g., Flagship Nat. Bank v. Gray Distrib. Sys., Inc., 485 So. 

2d 1336, 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). 
5

A foreclosure sale is not conclusive evidence of property’s fair market 

value. See Morgan v. Kelly, 642 So. 2d 1117, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). For 

this reason, a deficiency judgment generally requires an evidentiary hearing 

to determine a property’s fair market value. See, e.g., Dabas v. Boston Invs. 

Grp., Inc., 231 So. 3d 542, 546 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Khan v. Simkins 

Indus., 687 So. 2d 16, 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Liberty Bus. Credit Corp. v. 

Schaffer/Dunadry, 589 So. 2d 451, 451-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Thunderbird, 

Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins., 566 So. 2d 1296, 1298-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); 

Barnard v. First Nat. Bank of Okaloosa Cty., 482 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1986); Merrill v. Nuzum, 471 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). 

EPR argues that Section 5.3 of the Security Agreement is an “express 

waiver” of any hearing on the Collateral’s fair market value. We disagree. 

While Enviropower did waive a valuation with respect to the sale of the 

Collateral, no language in Section 5.3 “[c]learly and unmistakably 

communicate[s]” that Enviropower also waived a valuation for purposes of a 

deficiency judgment. See Express, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 

To hold otherwise would potentially award EPR double recovery. See 

Hammond v. Kingsley Asset Mgmt., LLC, 144 So. 3d 673, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2014). 

III. CONCLUSION
6

Enviropower did not expressly waive an evidentiary hearing on the 

Collateral’s fair market value for purposes of a deficiency judgment. 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the deficiency judgment.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary 

hearing.