RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-0514-MR

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE 

SERVICES, LLC APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM POWELL CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 16-CI-00195

RED RIVER DEVELOPMENT LLC; 

TONY G. MORTON, MEMBER, 

SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AT MASTER 

COMMISSIONER’S SALE; TONY G. 

MORTON, MEMBER, RED RIVER 

DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ROSE 

ARNETT; CHRIS ARNETT; 

CENTRAL KENTUCKY 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A 

KENTUCKY CORPORATION; 

ASSIGNEE OF UK MEDICAL 

CENTER & ASSIGNEE OF KY 

MEDICAL SERVICES 

FOUNDATION, INC.; AND MONICA 

S. LACY, MASTER COMMISSIONER APPELLEES 
-2-

AND NO. 2022-CA-0516-MR

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE 

SERVICES, LLC APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM POWELL CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 16-CI-00195

RED RIVER DEVELOPMENT LLC; 

TONY G. MORTON, MEMBER, 

SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AT MASTER 

COMMISSIONER’S SALE; TONY G. 

MORTON, MEMBER, RED RIVER 

DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ROSE 

ARNETT; CHRIS ARNETT; 

CENTRAL KENTUCKY 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A 

KENTUCKY CORPORATION; 

ASSIGNEE OF UK MEDICAL 

CENTER & ASSIGNEE OF KY 

MEDICAL SERVICES 

FOUNDATION, INC.; AND MONICA 

S. LACY, MASTER COMMISSIONER APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON,1 AND JONES, JUDGES.

1

Judge Donna Dixon concurred in the Opinion prior to her retirement effective November 20, 

2023. Release of this Opinion was delayed by administrative handling.
-3-

JONES, JUDGE: The Appellant, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC 

(“Carrington”), appeals two orders arising out of a foreclosure action and judicial 

sale at which the Appellee, Red River Development LLC (“Red River”), purchased 

a piece of real property for $1.00. On appeal, Carrington asserts that the Powell 

Circuit Court erred when it overruled Carrington’s objection and approved the sale. 

Having reviewed the record, we can discern no basis upon which to reverse. 

The circuit court correctly applied the law, which required consideration of all the 

attendant circumstances, not just the sales price. Because the circuit court did not 

abuse its discretion, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Carrington loaned $82,314.00 to Chris Arnett as set forth in a 

promissory note he executed on April 3, 2007. The loan was secured by a 

mortgage on real property located at 411 Adams Ridge Road in Clay City, 

Kentucky, and owned by Chris and his wife, Rose. On October 19, 2016, 

Carrington filed a complaint in Powell Circuit Court against Chris, Rose, and 

Central Kentucky Management Services, Inc.2 Carrington alleged that Chris was 

in default and sought to enforce the promissory note and mortgage. As of the date 

2 Central Kentucky Management was joined as a defendant on the basis that it had filed a 

judgment lien on the same property in October 2011. 
-4-

of the complaint, Carrington alleged that Chris owed it $71,426.09 plus interest, 

fees, and costs. 

Rose was served by a sheriff’s deputy on December 3, 2016. Chris 

proved exceedingly more difficult to locate, but he was ultimately served via a 

warning order attorney on June 21, 2017. For reasons that are not relevant to this 

appeal, the proceedings dragged on for some time. On November 3, 2021, the 

circuit court entered an In Rem Final Judgment and Order of Sale.3 The circuit 

court then directed the Powell County Master Commissioner to sell 411 Adams 

Ridge Road pursuant to KRS4 426.205. 

The Master Commissioner appointed Gary Hall and H.T. Derickson, 

III to appraise the property. Following their inspection, the appraisers filed a joint 

report assigning the property a fair market value of $60,000.00. The sale was first

noticed to take place at 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 2021, at the Powell County 

Courthouse, outside the Front Entrance, Courthouse Door, Stanton, Kentucky. 

Upon Carrington’s request, this sale was canceled and later re-noticed for February 

21, 2022. The Master Commissioner served the notice for the upcoming sale on 

February 1, 2022, and the sale was duly advertised on February 10, 2022, as to the 

3 The judgment is in the amount of $95,781.26 plus interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from 

July 3, 2019, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.

4 Kentucky Revised Statutes. 
-5-

time, place, and terms of sale, together with a description of the property to be 

sold. 

Pursuant to the notice, the Master Commissioner called for bids

outside the Powell County Courthouse at 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 2022. Tony 

Morton bid $1.00 on behalf of Red River. After receiving no other bids, the

Master Commissioner concluded the sale. The following day, February 22, 2022, 

the Master Commissioner filed a report of sale confirming that Red River became 

the purchaser of the property having submitted “the highest and best bid in the 

amount of $1.00.” (Record (“R.”) at 268.) The report further confirmed that,

because the bid was not more than two-thirds of the appraised value, Red River’s

purchase was subject to the right of redemption. That same day, Red River filed an 

acknowledgment of successful bidder confirming it was the successful bidder of 

the property for the price of $1.00. The parties to the underlying action were sent a 

notice advising that they had ten days from February 22, 2022, to serve written 

objections to the Commissioner’s report. 

On March 3, 2022, Carrington timely filed its exceptions to the 

Master Commissioner’s report along with a motion to vacate the sale. Carrington 

explained that it had instructed its local counsel, Attorney Emmett Daniel Clifford,

to attend the sale and bid on Carrington’s behalf but that Attorney Clifford was 

faced with several unforeseen problems that resulted in him arriving a minute after 
-6-

the time of the sale, and by that time the Master Commissioner had already 

declared Red River to be the highest bidder. Carrington argued that the grossly 

inadequate sales price, coupled with the “irregularities in the proceedings” faced 

by its counsel on the day of the sale, justified sustaining its exceptions and setting 

aside the sale. 

Carrington filed Attorney Clifford’s affidavit in support of its motion. 

Therein, Attorney Clifford explained what occurred on the day of the sale as 

follows:

1) I am attorney Emmett Daniel Clifford. I attended the 

[M]aster Commissioner sale of the Chris Arnett property 

on February 21, 2022, in Stanton, Kentucky.

2) I left Cynthiana with sufficient time to attend the sale, 

which is about an hour and 10 minutes. I had made the 

trip previously on several occasions. 

3) I called Master Commissioner Monica Lacy at 4:12 

p.m. on her cell phone and left a voice mail that I would 

attend the sale. I generally have the cell phone numbers 

of all master commissioners. 

4) I was delayed in Paris on US 460 with road 

construction work. However, I still had time to arrive in 

Stanton at the proper time.

5) Because I was familiar with the location of the Powell 

County Courthouse so [sic] I did not have on my GPS.

6) When I arrived in Stanton, I began to make a left turn 

after the Mexican restaurant, which was always my 

landmark. The restaurant apparently had burned up and 

was unrecognizable, so I was not sure of the proper turn.
-7-

7) As I recall I turned left at the next road or perhaps the 

next one after that. Another building, a blue one, and 

also a landmark, also had been razed, which was 

confusing.

8) A track hoe was working in the middle of the road, so 

I turned around and went back out to the highway, turned 

left and attempted to a make a left to the courthouse by 

another method, I turned on my GPS (rather than to guess 

the roads), which created a delay, and it told me that my 

chosen new route was not the way to the courthouse so I 

went back around to where the track hoe was working, 

which I now know is Court Street, and after delaying for 

a few seconds drove around the operating track hoe.

9) Presumably the track hoe operator, unless he or she 

was putting in some overtime, would still be working at 5 

o’clock.

10) I parked my car at the courthouse and hurried over to 

[M]aster Commissioner Monica Lacy. My cell phone 

said 5:01. I was informed that the sale was over, and that 

Ms. Lacy had recorded it.

11) Ms. Lacy said she either had not received my call or 

did not have a signal, but I do not recall which.

12) I am quite sure the track hoe blockage in Stanton 

delayed me by several minutes.

(R. at 280-81.) 
-8-

Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order overruling 

Carrington’s exceptions and denying its motion to set aside the sale.5 The order 

states:

In the case at hand, we are dealing with a piece of 

property that has an appraised value of $60,000 that was 

sold for $1.00. The Court finds no irregularities occurred 

in the sale process. In fact, counsel admitted in argument

that they saw no irregularities on how the sale was 

conducted. Counsel who was retained to attend the sale 

testified he was delayed by various traffic/road 

construction issues and his prior stated “landmarks” for 

directions were no longer in place. He was driving from 

Cynthiana and did not arrive [until] after the stated sale 

time of 5:00 p.m. Even though his arrival time was only 

a few minutes afterwards, the sale had already been 

completed and recorded by the Master Commissioner. 

Although it is unfortunate for the Plaintiffs and Hon. 

Clifford start times must mean something. If not, the 

Master Commissioner would never have finality in sales. 

In his affidavit, Hon. Clifford indicated that he called the 

Master Commissioner on her cell phone; however, the 

Master Commissioner stated during arguments that the 

call was on her office number, and she did not receive the 

message until the next day as she had not been in her 

office. The message indicated that Hon. Clifford was on 

his way. However, this Court does not find any 

responsibility or requirement placed on the Master 

Commissioner to delay sales beyond the stated time even 

if she had received this message timely. 

5 Based on the circuit court’s order, it appears that the court held a hearing at which it heard 

from the parties including Attorney Clifford and the Master Commissioner; however, the record 

certified by the Powell Circuit Court does not include a DVD recording of the hearing. “It is 

incumbent upon Appellant to present the Court with a complete record for review.” Chestnut v. 

Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 288, 303 (Ky. 2008). When the record is incomplete, this Court 

must assume that the omitted record supports the trial court. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 697 

S.W.2d 143, 145 (Ky. 1985).
-9-

The Court further finds there is no indication of fraud or 

misdoings on any of the parties. Mr. Morton did what 

any good businessman would do. He showed up and bid. 

Although there is a discrepancy between the appraisal 

value and bid value; this Court does not find it is of such 

a difference that “shocks the conscience.” 

For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s motion to 

vacate the sale is HEREBY OVERRULED and IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE SALE FROM 

FEBRUARY 21, 2021 [SIC] is AFFIRMED. This is a 

final Judgment and there is no reason to delay its entry of 

execution. 

(R. 293-94.) On April 20, 2022, the circuit court entered an Order Confirming 

Report of Sale, Approval of Deed and Order for Delivery of Deed. 

Carrington filed separate notices of appeal for each order, which 

generated two separate appellate actions, No. 2022-CA-00514 and No. 2022-CA00516. Because two appeals arise from the same underlying action and present 

identical issues, this Court consolidated them by order entered September 23, 

2022. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The circuit court’s decision to confirm or vacate a judicial sale is 

reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” U.S. Bank National Association v. 

Courtyards University of Kentucky, 594 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Ky. App.

2019) (citations omitted). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial 

court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound 
-10-

legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) 

(citations omitted). While the test for abuse of discretion is easily stated, the 

definition is amorphous and applying the test in practice is exceedingly difficult. It 

requires appellate courts to walk a fine line by engaging “in a meaningful review 

without resorting to retrying the issue[.]” Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 917 

(Ky. 2004) (emphasis added). 

III. ANALYSIS

“Whatever the value of the property, it has long been the rule in this 

jurisdiction that mere inadequacy of price is an insufficient ground for setting aside 

a judicial sale.” Sterling Grace Mun. Securities Corp. v. Central Bank & Trust 

Co., 926 S.W.2d 670, 673 (Ky. App. 1995). “For an inadequate price to require 

reversal for a new sale, the amount brought in the original sale must be so grossly 

inadequate as to ‘shock the conscience’ of the circuit court or raise the presumption 

of fraud.” Id. “[T]he case which shocks the conscience of the court ‘can never be 

reduced to a mathematical formula.’” Combs v. Reneer, 673 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Ky. 

App. 2023) (quoting Looper v. Madison Guar. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 292 Ark. 225, 

729 S.W.2d 156, 157 (1987)). Rather, the inadequacy of the sales price must be 

assessed considering all the circumstances surrounding the proceeding. Id. A low 

sales price in combination with irregularities in the proceedings “can be grounds 
-11-

for setting aside a sale if the fault lies with the Master Commissioner rather than 

one of the parties.” U.S. Bank National Association, 594 S.W.3d at 210. 

Faced with a sales price of $1.00 and Carrington’s objection, the 

circuit court did precisely what this Court has previously indicated as proper – it 

conducted a hearing at which it received testimony from both Carrington’s counsel 

and the Master Commissioner. See, e.g., Halifax Financial Group, L.P. v. Lawson, 

2013-CA-001114-MR, 2014 WL 3887952, at *3 (Ky. App. Aug. 8, 2014) (“We 

believe that this matter should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary 

hearing as there have been issues raised challenging the sufficiency of notice and 

service upon which the court, in its sound discretion, may take into consideration 

along with the alleged inadequate valuation in determining whether to set aside the 

sale.”).6 

As set forth in the circuit court’s order, the testimony indicated that 

there were no irregularities in the actual proceedings. The sale was set for 

February 21, 2022, and the parties were given adequate prior notice of it. The sale 

was advertised with a description of the property. The Master Commissioner 

started the sale at the appointed time. Red River started with a bid of $1.00, and 

when no other parties countered, the property was sold to it. Had Carrington’s 

6

 This unpublished opinion is not cited as binding authority, but rather for consideration of the 

underlying point of law as authorized by Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 41(A).
-12-

representative been present, it would have no doubt bid against Red River and

generated a higher sales price. However, as noted by the circuit court, Attorney 

Clifford’s failure to arrive at the sale was not attributable to the Master 

Commissioner or the result of anything unusual. He encountered construction and 

could not remember where to turn once he arrived in Stanton because the 

landmarks he had previously relied upon were no longer present. Although

regrettable, we cannot say that the problems Attorney Clifford encountered were of 

an irregular or unusual nature, and they certainly were not the fault of either Red 

River or the Master Commissioner. 

Moreover, even if the Master Commissioner had received Attorney 

Clifford’s message, we do not believe it would have been proper to delay the sale 

when he failed to appear at the designated start time, as it would have suggested 

favoritism to one of the parties to this action. 

In sum, the circuit court considered the low sales price in light of all

circumstances surrounding the sale and did not find the price so shocking that it 

justified setting the sale aside. The circuit court rendered this decision after a 

hearing at which it heard from all interested parties. We discern no abuse of 

discretion on its part. 
-13-

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the orders of the Powell Circuit 

Court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

Brian E. Chapman

Cincinnati, Ohio

NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.