Case Name: COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Charles M. VALOIS, Doris R. Valois, his wife, and Ocean Reef Shores, Inc., a Florida corp., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-11-27
Citations: 570 So. 2d 300
Docket Number: Nos. 89-1534, 89-1533
Parties: COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Charles M. VALOIS, Doris R. Valois, his wife, and Ocean Reef Shores, Inc., a Florida corp., Appellees.
Judges: Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and GER-STEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 300–306

Head Matter:
COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Charles M. VALOIS, Doris R. Valois, his wife, and Ocean Reef Shores, Inc., a Florida corp., Appellees.
Nos. 89-1534, 89-1533.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 27, 1990.
Allison Doliner Hockman, John R. Sutton, Miami, for appellant.
Frank, Schmitt & Frank and Michael Frank, North Bay Village, for appellees.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and GER-STEN, JJ.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
BASKIN, Judge.
Community Bank of Homestead appeals the entry of a final judgment denying its claim for deficiency judgment and awarding one dollar as nuisance damages against Charles M. Valois, Doris Valois and Ocean Reef Shores, Inc. (collectively Valois). We affirm.
Valois executed a note in favor of Community Bank secured by a mortgage of certain real property. Valois defaulted, and the bank instituted a foreclosure action. The trial court entered a judgment of foreclosure against Valois, and, on July 16, 1987, the bank purchased the property at foreclosure sale for a successful bid of $100. In December, 1987, the bank sold the property to Dr. Frederick Poppe, trustee, for $180,000 plus the realtor's commission. Subsequently, the bank instituted an action for a deficiency judgment. The bank and Valois stipulated that the debt owed totalled approximately $220,000. The bank presented evidence that it purchased the property at foreclosure sale for a nominal bid, that it resold to Dr. Poppe for $180,000 and that the fair market value of the property when it was resold in December 1987, approximately five months later, was $202,000. Valois introduced evidence that the fair market value of the property as of the date of foreclosure was $318,000. Finding that the resale price was less than fair market value, the listing price, or the appraisal, and that the resale was not an arm's length transaction, the trial court denied the claim for a deficiency judgment. We affirm on other grounds.
In S/D Enterprises, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 374 So.2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA-1979), this court held that "[gjenerally, the granting of a deficiency judgment is the rule rather than the exception, unless there are facts and circumstances creating equitable considerations upon which a court should deny the deficiency decree in the exercise of its discretion." See Baxter v. Kobs, 451 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
When the fair market value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale exceeds the debt owed, the court may deny a deficiency judgment. Municipal Sav. & Loan Corp. v. Fiorentino, 512 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Belgrano v. Finkelstein, 493 So.2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see Spencer v. American Advisory Corp., 338 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 (Fla.1977). Here, the evidence as to fair market value was the price at which the property was resold to Dr. Poppe, Merrill v. Nuzum, 471 So.2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the appraisal of $318,000 offered by Valois' expert witness. , Apparently, the trial judge rejected the resale price as evidence of fair market value: the court stated "[tjhis case is clearly a case where the [property] was sold far far below fair market value." The bank's appraisal of the value of the property as of the date of the sale to Dr. Poppe several months later was not evidence of the value on the date of the foreclosure sale. Symon v. Charleston Capital Corp., 242 So.2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Because "[tjhere was a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which the trial court could have concluded . that the fair market value of the [property] purchased by the mortgagees exceeded the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale," the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a deficiency judgment. Fiorentino, 512 So.2d at 229; Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So.2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In the case before us, as in Fiorentino, there was sufficient evidence that the fair market value exceeded the amount of the debt owed. There was no basis for a deficiency judgment because the bank suffered no financial loss. Fiorentino.
We also affirm the trial court's award of damages for nuisance in the amount of one dollar. Community Bank failed to demonstrate the amount of damages it suffered as a result of Valois' actions. See W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Wharfside Two Ltd., 545 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1989).
Affirmed.
GERSTEN, J., concurs.
. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sandcastle Beach Joint Venture, 498 So.2d 519, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("The date of the foreclosure sale is the date at which the fair market value is determined."); Flagship State Bank v. Drew Equip. Co., 392 So.2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (same); Symon v. Charleston Capital Corp., 242 So.2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (same).
. The record refutes the bank's contention that the appraisal opinion was not admissible because the appraisal was not as of the date of the foreclosure sale: the expert testified that there were no changes in market values after the appraisal. Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So.2d 1296, 1304-05 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Defense counsel asked the following question: "Between March of 1987 and I believe it's July of 1987 the date of the foreclosure sale and then the sale date to a third party in December of 1987, based upon your best estimate and opinion as an expert in the field of property appraisal, do you feel that there was any significant impact to decrease the valuation during that time period?'' The expert answered: "No, sir. We frequently work that general area. We are not aware of anything in the way of changes that would have negative impact subsequent to the date of our appraisal." The foregoing testimony is evidence that the witness considered changes subsequent to the appraisal.
. The bid price at foreclosure sale "may be considered by the court as one of the factors in determining a deficiency," § 45.031(8), Fla.Stat. (1987), and "upon the introduction of the evidence of the sale price, the defendant has the burden of going forward and presenting such evidence . concerning the fair market value of the property." Fara Mfg. Co., Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 366 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Thunderbird, Ltd. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 566 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, "[a] shockingly inadequate sale price in the foreclosure proceeding can be asserted as an equitable defense and the trial judge has the discretion and duty to inquire into the reasonable and fair market value of the property sold, the adequacy of the sale price, and the relationship, if any, between the foreclosing mortgagee and the purchaser at the sale, before entering a judgment on the note." R.K. Constr. Co. v. Fulton, 216 So.2d 11, 13 (Fla.1968).
.The trial court determined that the "bare bones" fair market value of the property was between $ 186,000 and $216,000. However, the record indicates that the value referred to was as of the date of the sale to Dr. Poppe, not the date of the foreclosure sale. The trial judge stated: "[w]e are still above the price that the bank sold it for under any possible hypothesis or construction."