Case Name: RSR INVESTMENTS, INC. and Native Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. BARNETT BANK OF PINELLAS COUNTY; Sarah J. Lee; John S. Lee; Ted P. Wittner; Richard A. Leandri; Francis C. Leandri; Bahia Del Mar Condominium Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, John Doe and Jane Doe, unknown spouses or tenants, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-10-28
Citations: 647 So. 2d 874
Docket Number: No. 93-03401
Parties: RSR INVESTMENTS, INC. and Native Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. BARNETT BANK OF PINELLAS COUNTY; Sarah J. Lee; John S. Lee; Ted P. Wittner; Richard A. Leandri; Francis C. Leandri; Bahia Del Mar Condominium Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, John Doe and Jane Doe, unknown spouses or tenants, Appellees.
Judges: DANAHY, A.C.J, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 647
Pages: 874–877

Head Matter:
RSR INVESTMENTS, INC. and Native Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. BARNETT BANK OF PINELLAS COUNTY; Sarah J. Lee; John S. Lee; Ted P. Wittner; Richard A. Leandri; Francis C. Leandri; Bahia Del Mar Condominium Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, John Doe and Jane Doe, unknown spouses or tenants, Appellees.
No. 93-03401.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 28, 1994.
Rex Martin Barbas, Barbas, Weed, Glenn, Morgan & Wheeley, Tampa, for appellants.
John Curtis Hueks, Powell, Carney, Moore, Hucks & Olson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee Barnett Bank.

Opinion:
HALL, Judge.
The appellee, Barnett Bank of Pinellas County, was the owner and holder of a final judgment of foreclosure in the amount of $86,109.59. The final judgment set the judicial sale of the real property at issue for August 23, 1993, and provided that Barnett Bank would advance the costs for holding the foreclosure sale.
Through a clerical error on Barnett's counsel's calendar, no one appeared at the sale to represent Barnett. The representative of the clerk's office made no effort to contact Barnett and, in spite of the provision in the final judgment requiring Barnett to advance the costs of the sale, allowed the appellants, RSR Investments, Inc., and Native Investments, Inc., to pay the aforesaid costs and subsequently held the sale. At the sale, the appellants submitted a combined and cooperative bid of $5000, as third party bidders. The clerk of court thereafter issued a certificate of sale in favor of the appellants.
Upon discovering that the foreclosure sale had been conducted despite the absence of counsel for Barnett, Barnett's counsel filed a motion to set aside the foreclosure sale and vacate the certificate of sale. At the hearing on the motion, counsel for Barnett argued that his failure to appear was due to clerical error, as the sale had been mistakenly scheduled on his calendar for August 24, instead of August 23. Counsel also argued that the $5000 purchase price was grossly inadequate, since the foreclosure judgment was in the amount of $86,109.59
During a lengthy hearing on Barnett's motion to set aside the sale, counsel for Barnett advised the court that he had a print out from the public records of Pinellas County showing the value of the property at issue. Later in the hearing, the court announced that it was taking judicial notice of the appraised value of the property, as well as noting the amount of the foreclosure judgment. The court stated, "The amount bid was not just grossly inadequate, sir, it was sublimely inadequate. It was so low as to bring up in and of itself a presumption of bad faith on the part of the buyer." The record further reflects that at no time during the hearing did counsel for the appellants object to the public records print out of the appraised value of the property or to the trial court's taking of judicial notice of the appraised value.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled that the failure of Barnett's counsel to appear at the foreclosure sale was the result of excusable error. The trial court also found that the amount bid by the appellants at the sale constituted grossly inadequate consideration for the subject property. In reaching its decision, the trial court was concerned that there were only two bidders at the sale who made a conjunctive effort as opposed to a competitive bidding situation.
The order under review in this instance involves a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court and is one which requires a showing of a gross abuse of discretion to reverse. Doctor's Hosp. of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 415 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We, therefore, agree with the trial court and affirm the order setting aside the foreclosure sale.
Even if we disregard the property appraiser's valuation of the property at $107,-300, the court had before it a mortgage foreclosure judgment of $86,109.59, together with a bid price of $5000. This certainly creates a presumption of a grossly inadequate sales price. The price, coupled with the buyer's considerable experience in the real estate profession and knowledge of foreclosure sale procedures and the apparent cooperative bid on the part of the buyers — rather than a competitive bid situation at the public sale-supports the trial court's finding that the appellants were not good faith purchasers.
In view of the misconduct or irregularity on the part of the parties connected with this sale, we cannot say it was a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to set aside the instant foreclosure sale. Fernandez v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 489 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
DANAHY, A.C.J, concurs.
QUINCE, J., dissents with opinion.