A fter the fi ling o f t h e ir a p p e llate b rie f, A tto rn e y M a rtin w a s p e rm itt e d to w ithd ra w a s c o u n se l f o r th e a p p e llan ts 1 by or der of

t h i s Cour t da t ed M ay 3, 2006. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 28, 200 6

LARRY P. CONWAY AND 

### MARILYN J . CONWAY

v. EAS TER N S AV INGS BA NK, FS B

An Appeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-04-1950- 3 D. J. Alissand ratos, Chancellor

No. W2005-02919-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Dece m ber 11, 2006

This is a petition to set aside a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs, husband and w ife, borr owed ove r $1.1 milli on from the de fenda nt bank in order to buy the subject home. The plaintiffs late r def aulted

on the loan. Th e hu sb a ndfi le d a pe ti ti on in ba nk

ru ptc y a ndlis te d th e ho me a s a pa rt of his bankruptc y

estate. The bank obtained r elief f rom the automatic stay
, acc eler ated the debt, and be g an fo re c los ur e pr oc e e din g s. Th e da y be fo re the sc he du le d for e c los ur e sa le , the wi fe fi le d a pe tit ion in bankruptc y

and listed the home as part of he r bankr uptcy estate. The fore closure sa le was postponed. The ba nk obtained re lief fr om the automatic stay in the wife’ s bankruptc y case , and the f orec losure sale wa s conducte d. The bank purcha sed the home for a cre dit bid of $750,000. Eig ht months l ater , the husband a nd wife f

iled this action for injunctive relief and to vacate the f orec losure sale . They alleg ed, among other thing s, inadequate consider ation and lac k of prope r notice. The bank filed a motion for summary

judgme nt, which was g rante d based in pa rt on ea rlier f indings by the bankr

uptcy court in the plaintiffs’ bankruptc y proce eding s. The husband a nd wife now appea l, ag ain ar g uing inadequate consider ation and lack of not ice. We aff irm, finding that the plaintiffs fa iled to proffe r sufficie nt evidence to cre ate a g enuine issue of

fac t for trial.
Tenn. R. App . P . Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J
., W.S
., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.

V e n i t a M ar i e M a

r t i n , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e ap p e lla n t s , L arr y

P

. C o n w a y

a n d M ar i l y n J. C o n w a y. 1

J o el W

. Gi d d en s an d J as o n S

. M an gru m , M em p h i s , T en n es s ee , fo r t h e a p p el l ee , E as t er n S av i n gs Ba nk, FSB

.T h e E a ste rn S a v ing s B a n k a n d it s p re d e c e sso rs in inte re st w ill b e re fer re d to a s “th e B a n k .” 2

P r i or t o c onf

i r mat i on of t he C hapt er 11 p l an, t he bankr upt cy cour t conv er t ed hi s Chapt er 11 cas e t o a Chapt er 3

7 l i qui dat i on ca s e.

-2- OP IN ION

In O c t o b e r

2 0 0 0
, P l a i n t i f

f s / A p p e l l a n t s L arr y

P

. C o n w a y

a n d M ar i l y n J

. C o n w ay ( c o l l e c t i v e l y,

“ th e C o n w a y s ” )
, h u s b a n d a n d w i f e , p u r c h a s e d a

h o m e a t6 0 9 9 S h a d y

G r o v e R o a d i n M e m ph is, T e n n e s s e e ( “ t h e S h a d y

G r o v e p r o p e r t y ” o r “ t h e p r o p e r t y ” )
, w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c to f t h i s l a w s u i t

. In

c on ne c tio n w ith thepu rc ha se , th e Con way s e xec ute d a de e d of trus t sec uring pa y me nt o f a no te in the principle sum of $1,160,000. De fenda nt/Appellee Ea stern Saving s Ba nk, FSB , is the succe ssor in i nte re st t o th e orig ina l le nd e r, Sov e re ig n M ortg a g e Cor po ratio n, a ndother prede c e sso rs in int e re st. 2

On J uly 1, 2001, the Conway s defaulted under the terms of their mortg ag e by failing to pay the m onthly note due of $11,761. On Februa ry 26, 2002, Mr. C onway filed a bankruptcy petition

un de r C ha

pte r 11
, see kin g re or g a nizatio n, a ndhe lis te d th e Sha dy Gr ov e ho me a s a

pa rt of his bankruptc y

estate. 3

On May 14, 2003, the B ank filed a motion i n the bankr

uptcy court for relief from the automatic stay

in ord er t o fore close on the Shady Grove property . On September 25, 2003, the bankruptc y

court c onducted a

hearing in the matter. On Septembe r 30, 2003, the ba nkruptcy court

e n t e r e d a n o r d e r

m ak i n g f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a n d a u t h o r i z i n g t h e B a n k t o p r o c e e d w i t h f

o r e c l o s u r e

. In its orde r, the bankruptc y court found that the property was “value d at $750,000.00,” and that the total d eb to n t h e h o m e a tt h e t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g wa s i n ex ce s s o f $ 1

. 4 m i l l i o n

. P ro ce ed i n g pro s e , Mr. Conway appea led the orde r. He d i d n o t , howeve r, obtain a stay of the orde r, and the fore closure proce eding s went for war d.

Sho rt ly a ft e r o btaini ng re lie f f

ro m th e a uto ma tic stay , th e B a nk a c c e le rate d p a y me nts

. Th ro ug h it s su bs titute trus te e , Ro be rt M. Wils on , Jr. (“ Wils on ” ), the B a nk a dv e rt ise d th e pr op e rt y for sa le and notified the Conway s of its intent to f orec lose on the property

. I n November 2003, the Ba nk sent the C onway s a Notice of Trustee’s S ale via certified mail and re g ular mail, along with a letter informing them of

the fore closure sa le date of Dec ember 19, 2003 at 12:00 p.m. at the Shelby County , Tenne ssee, Courthouse. The am o u n t o wed on the note at the time of for eclosure was $1,489,461.23.

On De ce m b er 1 8
, 2 0 0 3
, i n an ef fo rt t o p re v en tt h e s al e o f h erh o m e, M rs

. C o n wa y , ac t i n g pr o
se , filed her

own Chapter 11 bankruptc y petition. She a lso list ed the Shady Grove home as pa

rt of her ba nkruptcy estate. This resulted in another automatic st ay

. I n light of Mr s. Conway ’s petition, the Dec ember 19 fore closure sale was postponed until January 9, 2004. On Dec ember 23, 2003, the Ba nk filed a motion seeking relief from thi s second automatic stay in order to pr ocee d with the fore closure. T he foreclosure sale was ag ain pos tponed unt il J anuary 16, 2004. On J anuary 12, 2004,T h er e i s n o i n di ca t i on i n t h e r ec or d t h at M r s

. Conw ay ’ s appe al i s pen di n g ; pr es u mabl y i t wa s l at er di s mi s s ed. 4

-3- the bankr uptcy court g rante d the Ba nk relief from the automatic stay . Mrs. Conway appea led, but sh e didno t ob ta in a

stay pe nd ing app e a l. 4

On J anuary

16, 2003, prior to Mrs. Conway ’s appe al, t h e Ba n k fo rec losed on the Shady Grove home. At the for eclosure sale, the B ank boug ht the property for a cre dit bid of $750,000.

On F e b r u a r y 4
, 2 0 0 4
, M rs

. C o n wa y , aga i n ac t i n g pro s e , filed a motion in the bankruptc y
c ou rt re qu e sti ng re ins ta te me nt o f the a uto ma tic stay in he r c a se . T he ba nk ru ptc y c ou rt he ardMr s. Conway ’s motion, and on Fe bruary 25, 2004, denied he r re quest.

On Fe bruary

9, 2004, the B ank filed a fo rc i ble entry

and deta iner (“ FED ”) a ction in the S h e l b y C o u n t y G e n e r a l S e s s i o n s C o u r tt o r e m o v e t h e C o n w a y s f r o mth e S h a d y

G r o v e h o m e

. In M ar ch 2 0 0 4
, a j u d g m e n t w a s en t er ed i n t h e B an k ’s fa v o r. T h e C o n wa y s , aga i n ac t i n g pro s e , appea led the g ener al sessions court judg ment to the Shelby County Circuit Court. The circ uit court aff irmed the B ank’s judg ment of possession.
On September

28, 2004, eig ht months after the f orec losure sale , the Conway s filed the instant complaint ag ainst the Ban k in the Shelby CountyChance ry

Court. The complaint wa s entitled “Ve rified Complaint for In j u n ctive Relief, to Va cate For eclosure Sale for Inadequa cy of Consideration for D amag es, and to Impress a Lien Lis Pendens .” I t a lleg ed that the B ank boug ht the Shady Grove home for an inadequate price
, failed to provide the Conway s notice of the f orec losure

sa le date pu rsuan t to the de e d o f t ru st a ndTe nn e sse e la w, faile d to a dv e rt ise the fo re c los ur e sa le p u rs u an tt o T en n es s ee C o d e A n n o t at ed § 3 5 -5 -1 0 1
, b re ac h ed i t s d u t y o f go o d fa i t h an d fa i r d ea l i n g, and eng ag ed in a c ivil conspiracy . Attache d to the co m p l ai n t was a Ma rch 13, 2004 a

ppraisal valuing the prope rty

at $2.1 million. The appraisa l was proc ured by the Conway s to prove the a ctual value of the prope rty

. When the Conway s filed the complaint, they obtained an ex

pa rte temporary restra ining or der pe rmitting them to rema in in possession of the home.

On J une 27, 2005, the Chanc ery Court conducted a hea

ring on the Conway s’ re quest for a te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n. Th e app e llate re c or d d oe s n ot i nc lud e a tr ans cri pt o f that he ari ng . O n July 1, 2005, the Chance ry

Court en t ere d an orde r denying the Conway s’ re quest for a temporary inj unction. Ba sed on the c omplaint, the hearing, and the final orde rs of the ba nkruptcy court, the Cha nc e ry Cou rt ma de the fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s o f f a c t:
1) P roper notice, pursua nt to the Deed of Trust executed by

the Plaintiffs and pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated §§ 35- 5-101 et seq. , o f the trus te e ’s sa le he ld by the S u b s t i t u t e T ru s t e e a s t o t h e [S h a d y G r o v e p r o p e r t y ] att h e S h e l b y C o un ty Courthouse on beha lf of Ea stern Saving s Ba nk (De fenda nt) on J anuary 16, 2004 was g ive n to [the Con way s]; f urthe r, the Cou rt fi nd s that the Sub sti tut e Tr us te e pr op e rl y adjourne d the orig inally

schedule d trustee’ s sale fr om Dece mber 19, 2003 a t 12:00 p.m. to Ja n u ar y 9
, 2 0 0 4 a t 1 2 p

. m. a n d th e n to Ja n u ar y 1 6
, 2 0 0 4 a t 1 2 :0 0 p .m. atO n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e B a n k re m o v e d the m a tter to the b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt, b u t t h e c a s e w a s su b se q u e n tly 5

r ema n ded by or der da t ed M ar ch 31, 2005.

-4- which date and ti me t he property was sold to Eastern Savings Bank for the a mount of $750,000; 2) Plaintiffs’ alleg ations that they wer e unaw are of the pending fore closure sa le, and that D e fe nd a nt n e ve r n oti fi e d th e m of the pe nd ing trus te e ’s sa le are wi thout me ri t g iven the finding s of fa cts and c onclusions of law c ontained in the Opinion and Or der on Debtor’ s Motion/C omplaint to R einstate the A utomati c St ay e n te red on the docket of the Ba nkruptcy Court f or the Western District of Tenne ssee in ca se no. 03-41589 WHB , A dv . Pr oc e e din g No . 0 4- 00 85 on or abo ut Februa

ry 25 , 2 00 4, wh ic h is incorporated into this C ourt’s finding of fa cts and c onclusions of law in this order; 3) Plaintiffs’ alleg ation that the cre dit sa le price of $750,000.00 made by Def endant was substantially

less than the value of the prope rty i s wi t h o ut merit g iven the finding s of fa cts and c onclusions of law set forth in Orde r Granting Ame nded Motion fo r R e lie f Fro m th e Au tom a tic Sta y Pr ov isi on s o f the B a nk

ru ptc y Cod e a ndto Require the T rustee to Abandon I ntere st in Col latera l entere d on the docke t of the Ba nkrupt cy

Court for the Western D istrict of Tenne ssee in ca se no. 02-23559 JDL on September 30, 2003, w hich is incorporated i nto this Court’s finding of fa cts and conclusions of law in this order . . . .

Thus, the request for a temporary injunction was denied based on these fa ctual finding s and the trial

c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion that th e Con way s d id n ot h a ve a su bs ta nti a l li ke lih oo d o f su c c e ss on the me ri ts

o f t h e i r c o m p l a i n t

. T h e r e a f

t e r , t h e B a n k

o b t a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n o f

t h e p r o p e r t y. 5

On A u gu s t 5
, 2005, the B ank filed a motion for summary

judgme nt in the underly ing Chance ry Court actio n

. I n their re sponse to the motion, the Conway s claimed that they wer e not provided with notice of

the fore closure sal e, t h ey wer e not af forde d an opportunity

to cure the default, and that the B ank fa iled to properly advertise the sale. The Conway s also asserted that the Ba nk ref used to provide them information reg arding the day
, time, and location of the fore closure sale, a nd that the purc hase price of $750,000 was inade quate. In s u p p o rt of their r esponse, the Con way s su bmi tte d th e a ff ida vit of Mr s. Con way , in wh ic h s he , in e ff e c t, r e state d th e a lle g a tio ns in the complaint.

On Novembe r 4, 2005, t he Chanc ery Court held a hea

ring on the B ank’s motion for summary judgme nt. At the conclusion of the hea ring , the Chance ry

Court gr anted the B ank’s motion, stating that th e fi nd ing s o f f

a c t ne c e ssa

ry fo r resolutio n o f the mot ion ha d a lr e a dy be e n d e te rm ine d in its J uly 1, 2005 order

deny ing the Conway s’ re quest for a temporary i n

junction. On November

18, 2005, the Chance ry

Court entere d an orde r consist en t wi t h i t s oral ruling . Fr om this order, the Con way s n ow app e a l.

On appea l, the Conway s arg ue that the trial court err ed in g ranting t h e B an ks ummary jud g me nt. Th e y

fi rs t a sse rt

that th e B a nk faile d to c omp ly wi th the fo re c los ur e no tic e pr ov isi on s in-5-

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated §§ 35-5- 101(a) and (b) by failing to advertise the sale thre e diffe rent times at least twenty day s prior to the sale. Furthermore , the Conway s arg ue, the B ank denie d them t h e r i g h tt o c u r e t h e i r

d e f a u l t , a s p r o v i d e d i n t h e d e e d o f tru s t o n t h e p r o p e r t y. F i n a l l y, t h e C o n w a ys claim that the sale of t he property “wa s wholly lacking of consideration,” because the purc hase price of $750,000 wa s less than half of the true va lue of the pr o p er t y

. Thus, the Conway s arg ue, the Ba nk’s motion for summary judgme nt should have bee n denied.

We r e vie w the tr ia l c ou rt ’s g rant o f s umm ary jud g me nt de novo with no presumption of

corr ectne ss. Wa rre n v . Es tat e of Kir k , 954 S.W. 2d 72 2, 72 3 (T e nn . 199 7)

. Sum mary jud g me nt i s appropriate whe re “ the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no g enuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the mov ing pa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a

ma tte r o f l a w. ” Te nn . R . Civ. P. 5 6. 04 . We mus t view the e vidence in a light most favor able to the nonmoving party , g iving that party the bene fit of all rea sonable infe renc es. Warren
, 9 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d at 7 2 3 (q u o t i n g Bain v . W e lls , 936 S.W .2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997) ). Once the moving party demonstrates that no g enuine issues of material fa ct exist , the

no n- mov ing pa

rt y mus t sh ow , b y a ff

ida vit or oth e rw ise , th a t a dis pu te d is su e of

ma te ri a l f

a c t e xists for tria l. By rd

v . Ha ll , 847 S.W .2d 208, 211 (Tenn. 1993)

.

I n order to set aside a fore closure sale, t he plainti ff must show more than ina dequac y of the purcha se price . The plaintiff must submit “some evidenc e of irr eg ularity , miscon d u ct , fraud, or

un fair ne ss o n th e pa

rt of the t rus tee or

the mortg a g e e that c a us e d o r c on tr ibu te d to a n in a de qu a te price
, for a court of equity to set aside the sale.” Hol t v . Citiz e ns Ce ntra l Ba nk , 688 S.W .2d 414, 41 6 ( Te nn . 1 98 4) ; see B&H Invs. v. Brooks , No. W1999-01252-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1141566, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug . 10, 2000).

I n this case , the C hance ry

Court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of

the B ank wa s based on the finding s of fa ct set out in its J uly 1, 2005 order deny ing the Conway s’ motion for a tempor ary inj un c tio n. I n the July

1, 20 05 or de r, the Cha nc e ry Cou rt no te d th a t th e fo re c los ur e sa le orig ina lly schedule d for De cembe r 19, 2003, had be en postponed first to January 9, 2004, and then to January 16, 2004, and found that proper notice of the fore closure sale had been issued “pursua nt to the Dee d of Trust . . . and pur suant to Tenne s s ee C o d e An notated §§ 35-5- 101 et seq. . . .” The Chance ry Court discoun t ed t he Conway s’ assertion that they wer e unaw are of the pe nding f orec losure sale
, citing the finding s of t he bankruptcy court in the Februa ry 25, 2004 order enter ed in M rs. Conway ’s

case

. T he Chanc ery

Court also rejec ted the Conway s’ ar g ument that the fore closure sa le price of $750,000 was sub s t an t i all y less than the true value of the prope rty , citing the bankruptc y court’s finding in the September 30, 200 3 o rd er enter ed in Mr. Conway ’s bankr uptcy case . Both of the bankruptc y

court orde rs on which the Chancery Court relied were incorporated by ref ere nce into the Chance ry Court’s J uly

1, 2005 order

.B ot h or der s w er e made pa r t of t h e appe l l at e r ec or d. 6

-6- Be cause the Chance ry

Court relied in part on the fi n d i n gs i n the bankr uptcy court’s Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 03 a ndF e br ua ry 25 , 2 00 4 o rd e rs , a

re vie w o f tho se or de rs is h e lpf ul. 6

I n its S eptember

30, 2003 order , the bankr uptcy court g rante d the Bank’s mot ion for re lief fr om the a uto ma tic stay

in M r. Con way ’s c a se . In th e or de r, the ba nk ru ptc y c ou rt ind ic a te d tha t it ha d r e vie we d th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a ndma de the sp e c if ic fi nd ing that th e Sha dy

Gr ov e pr op e rt y “is valued at $750,000.00.”

I n the Fe bruary

25, 2004 order
, enter ed in Mrs. Conway ’s case, t he bankruptcy court de nied Mrs. Conway ’s motion to reinstate the automatic stay

. I n her motion, Mrs. Conway arg ued that she

was denied due proce ss be cause she was not g iven notice of the hearing on the Ba nk’s motion for

re lie f fr om the a uto ma tic stay in h e r c a se . T he ba nk

ru ptc y c ou rt re je c te d M rs . Co nw a y ’s du e pr oc e ss arg ument, finding that she did, in fac t, r ece ive notice of the hearing. T he bankr uptcy court obser ved: “[t] here is no indication that Ms. Conway was una war e of w hat was ha p p en i ng in her husband’ s
case . These parties a

re living toge ther in the [Shady Grove home], and they

executed the c omplaint in this current c ase tog ether

. . . .” The bankruptc y court noted that Mr. Conway had bee n resisting the fo re c los ur e fo r s ome tim e , a ndstate d th a t th e re wa s “ no ind ic a tio n tha t the Con way s k e e p s e c re ts from ea ch other ; rather , they joined i n a co m p l ai n t alleg ing f raud on the part of [the B ank] and others.” T he bankr

uptcy court c oncluded, “it is not believable that Ms. Conway was una war e of [the Ba nk’s] forec losure.” I t noted that the sale of the Shady

Grove home “wa s quick, but under the circ umstances of

the prior ba nkruptcy

filed by Mr. Conway , it is apparent that the Conway s are attempting to stall [the Ba nk’s] relief by any means, including what is obvious ly a bad- faith filing of ba nk ru ptc y by Ms. Con way .” Th e ba nk

ru ptc y c ou rt c omm e nte d th a t th e ba d f a ith un de rl y ing Mr s. Conway ’s bankr

uptcy petition was evident beca use “it is obvious from her sche dules that she is not an appr opri at e ch ap t er 11 debtor. . . . [She] filed this bankruptcy case while having no source of income and w ithout any

means to provide [ the Bank] with adequate protection.” I t found that the timing of Mrs. Conwa y ’s bankr uptcy petition also showed bad f aith: “The most compelling fa ct that

overc omes Ms. Conway ’s assertions of ignor ance about t he foreclosure is the timing of he r filing for bankru p tc y

. Sh e f

il e d o n e d a y

b e f o r e th e s c h e d u le d f

o r e c lo s u r e

. . . . H e r

f il in g w a s in b a d f

a ith, since the issues r eg arding [t he B ank’s] fore closure a re the same a s the issues exis ting in Mr. Conway ’s ca se . . . .” There is no indication in the appellate rec ord befor e us that the finding s by the bankruptc y

court we re a

ppeale d.

Ba sed on t he bankr

uptcy court finding s, the Chance ry Court denied the Conwa y s’ re quest for a tempora ry injunction. The bankruptcy court’s factua l finding s wer e also the basis for the Chance ry Court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of

the B ank:

The Court finds that the Court has alre ady ruled in its J uly 1 Orde r of this y ear on the iss ue s o f f

a c t th a t th e Pla int if

fs ma int a ine d th e ir

dis pu te . B ut a s a

ma tter of la w i n this case is res judicata. That was the law in this ca se. The pe ople may not like the-7-

ruling in this court, but the Court has already adjudicate d that matter. S o there fore
, the Court finds the Motion should be gr anted.

On appea l, the Conway s do not a rg ue that the trial court err ed in r ely ing on the bankruptc y court’s f indings or in a

pply ing the law of the ca se doctrine or the princ iples of re s ju dic ata . Rather, the Conway s claim that three fac tual issues remain which are g erma ne to the issue of whe ther ther e
was sufficie nt “ irreg ularity
, misconduct, fraud, or unfairne ss” in the fore closure sale to justify setting it a sid e . T he Con way s a sse rt that ( 1) the B a nk faile d to c omp ly wi th the a dv e rt ise me nt r e qu ir e me nts of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated §§ 35-5-101( a) and (b) prior to the J anuary 16, 2004 fore closure sa le; (2) the Conway s’ dee d of trust g ave them the rig ht to cure defe cts prior to the fore closure sa le but the B ank denie d them that rig ht; and (3) be cause the $750,000 sale price wa s inadequ at e, the fore closure sa le was w holly without consideration.

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § § 3 5- 5- 10 1( a ) and(b ), c ite d by the Con way s, ma nd a te that in a for eclosure of this kind, “advertisement of such sale shall be made at least thre e (3) differ ent times in s ome ne ws pa

pe r p ub lis he d in the c ou nty wh e re thesa le is to be mad e,” andthat “ [t]he fi rs t publication shall be at least twenty (20) day s previous to the sale.” T.C.A. § 35-5-101( a), ( b) (2001)

. I t is undisput ed that, af

ter Mrs. C o n wa y

filed her bankruptc y

petition, the Ba nk did not repeat the notification proce ss pursuant to §§ 35-5-101( a) a nd (b). The Ba nk notes, howeve r, that prope r notification in compliance with the statute was given for the orig inal fore closure sa le sche duled for Dec ember 19, 2003, befor e Mrs. Conway ’s bankr uptcy petition was filed, and a

rg ues that this was sufficie nt notice of the f

orec losure sale that eventua lly took place. T he Conway s do not dispute that sufficie nt notice was g iven of the origina l date and time f or the for eclosure . As the bankr uptcy court observe d, the Conway s’ dog g ed re sistance to eve ry step of the f

orec losure proc eeding s dem o n strated that th e y we re ke e nly a wa

re of the fo re c los ur e pr oc e ss. Un de r the se c ir c ums ta nc e s, the B a nk arg ue s,
e ve n if the Janu ary

16
, 20 04 fo re c los ur e sa le wa s n ot a dv e rt ise d in a c c or da nc e wi th the pr e c ise te rm s of the statute, this would not amount to irreg ularity or unfairness that would justify setting a side the sale.

I n its J uly

1, 2005 order , the Chance ry Court held that “[p] roper

notice, pursuant to the De ed of Trust executed by the Plaintiffs and pursua nt to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 35- 5-101 et seq. , of the trustee ’s sale . . . w as g iven to [t he Conway s].” This order wa s issued after the J une 27, 2005 hearing on the Ba nk’s summary judgme nt motion. The recor d has no transc ript or ot her ident i fi ca tion of evidenc e submitted at the hea ring . There fore , the only evidenc e in the re cord pr of fe re d b y the Con way s in op po sit ion to the B a nk ’s mot ion wa s th e a ff ida vit of Mr s. Con way , in which she simply denies having rec eived proper notice of the sale. This c onclusory assertion is not

su ff ic ie nt t o c re a te a g e nu ine iss ue of ma te ri a l f a c t r e g ard ing wh e the r the B a nk ’s failu re to c omp ly wi th the statut e re nd e re d th e pr oc e ss u nf a ir or ir re g ula r. Un de r s e c tio n 35-5 -1 06 , th e failu re to comply with the advertisement provisions in the statutes reg arding trust deed sa les, in and of itself, do e s n ot r e nd e r a sa le vo id or vo ida ble . T .C. A. § 3 5- 5- 10 6 ( 20 01 ); see Doty v. Fe d. Land Ban k of Lo uisv ill e , 89 S.W .2d 337, 339 (Tenn. 1936). Under all of t hese circumstanc es, we must affirm the Chance ry Court’s holding that the B ank’s f ailure to re -adve rtise three times, twenty day s prior to theW e re c o g n iz e tha t t h e b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt d id no t ha v e the b e n e fit o f t h e a p p ra isa l sub m itt e d b y the C o n w a ys 7

to the C h a n c e ry C o u rt a s p ro o f o f th e v a lue o f th e p ro p e rty. B e c a u se a n in a d e q u a te p ric e a lo n e m a y no t se rv e a s a b a sis

o n whi ch t o s et asi d e a fo recl o sur e sal e, we need not ad d res s the iss u e o f whet her M r. and / o r M rs

. C o nway ar e

c o llate ra lly e sto p p e d fro m lit iga ting the a c tua l va lue o f t h e p ro p e rty. S e e g e n e ra lly P a v e rite, In c . v . IT T I n d u s. C re d it Co. , 6 2 1 S .W .2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 2 -6 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ).

-8- resc heduled f

orec losure date does not rende r the sale irreg ular or unf air, a nd it does not warr ant setting a side the for eclosure sale.

Th e Con way s n e xt ar g ue that th e fo re c los ur e sa le sh ou ld b e se t a si de b e c a us e , a ft e r M rs

. Conway filed her bankruptc y

petition, they

wer e not g iven an opportunity to c ure the ir defe ct, a right which the de ed of trust provides. I n support of t his claim, t he Conway s ag ain re ly on Mrs. Conway ’s aff idavit. As with the notice issue, the af fidavit contains only

the conc lusory

statement that the B ank “denie d me the rig ht to cure

. . . . Prior to f orec losure, [the Ba nk] denied us the opportunity to cure their [sic] alleg ed default.” When r esponding to a motion for summary judgme nt, the nonmoving party cannot simply

rely on his or her ple ading s, “but must set forth sp e c ifi c fac ts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fac t for trial.” By rd
, 84 7 S.W. 2d a t 21 1. Mr s. Con way ’s a ff ida vit fa ils to s e t f orth s pe c if

ic fa c ts s uf

fi c ie nt t o c re a te a

g e nu ine iss ue of

ma te ri a l f

a c t on thi s is su e . It is

un dis pu te d tha t the Con way s def a ult e d on the ir ob lig a tio n to the B a nk in Jul y 20 01 . T he re c or d a lso

re fl e c ts that th e Con way s r e sis te d th e fo re c los ur e a t e ve ry turn. Ho we ve r, in h e r a ffi dav it, Mr s. Con way do e s no t a sse rt that e ith e r sh e or Mr

. Con way of fe re d to c ur e , w e re a

ble to c ur e , o r tha t th e ir of fe r t o c ur e wa s r e

je c te d b y the B a nk a t a ny po int a lon g the way

. Th is a rg ume nt i s w ith ou t me ri t.
Finally
, t h e Conway s contend that the f orec losure sale should be set aside be cause it was

“ wh oll y la c kin g of c on sid e ratio n, ” arg uin g that the fo re c los ur e pric e of $7 50 ,0 00 fo r th e pro pe rt y was insuffic ient in light of the Conway s’ Marc h 2004 appra isal of $2.1 m i l l i o n

. I t is well settled t h a t , e v e n w h e n t h e s a l e p r i c e i s s h o c k i n g l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e a c t u a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y, inadequa cy

of the pric e alone is an insufficient ba sis on which to se t aside a f orec losure sale

. Hol

t , 68 8 S. W.2 d at 41 6; Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging Co. , 104 S.W .3d 848, 855 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). I n this case, the bankruptcy court he ld a hea

ring in which it considere d, among other issues, the value of

the Shady

Grove home. After evaluating the proof on this issue, it determined that th e pr op e rt y ha d an a c tua l app raise d v a lue of $7 50 ,0 00

. Ev e n a ssu min g thi s is a n in a de qu a te

7 price for the Shady

Grove property , we would not set aside the sa le bec ause, w ith no other evidenc e of “irr eg ularity , misconduct, fraud, or unfa irness,” the sale pric e alone is not a basis on which to set aside the fore closure sale. There fore
, the C hance ry Court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of the B ank wa s appropriate.

Th e de c isi on of

the tr ia l c ou rt

is a ff ir med

. Costs o n a

pp e a l are to b e ta xedto A pp e lla nts L arry P. Co nw a y

a ndMa ri ly n J. C on way , an d th e ir su re ty , f or wh ic h e xec uti on ma y

iss ue , if

nece ssary

.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE