Case Name: BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, Appellant, v. Barbara T. EDWARDS, et al., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-07-21
Citations: 849 So. 2d 1160
Docket Number: No. 1D02-3158
Parties: BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, Appellant, v. Barbara T. EDWARDS, et al., Appellee.
Judges: WOLF, C.J., CONCURS; ERVIN, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 849
Pages: 1160–1165

Head Matter:
BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, Appellant, v. Barbara T. EDWARDS, et al., Appellee.
No. 1D02-3158.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 21, 2003.
Alan Rosenthal, Esquire and Jack R. Reiter, Esquire of Adorno & Yoss, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Eddie M. Anderson, Esquire of Eddie M. Anderson, P.A., Lake City, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
BENTON, J.
Bankers Trust Company, as trustee (Bankers Trust), appeals an order entered in a foreclosure proceeding, styled Order Granting Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and Confirming Previous Sale. Earlier in the same proceeding, a final judgment of foreclosure had been entered. We therefore have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(4). We reverse.
Bankers Trust foreclosed a mortgage it held on property Barbara Tomlin Edwards owns in Columbia County, and obtained a judgment in the amount of $45,282.77, on April 16, 1999. A foreclosure sale scheduled for June 11, 1999, was cancelled upon the filing of a suggestion of Ms. Edwards' bankruptcy. Eventually, after her bankruptcy case was dismissed, the foreclosure sale was reset for April 17, 2002, although no sale occurred then, either. When the foreclosure sale was again rescheduled, Ms. Edwards filed her Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and to Confirm Previous Sale.
Despite its name, the order under review granting Ms. Edwards' motion did not confirm a sale of the foreclosed property. For reasons that are unclear from the record, no sale ever took place. Nor did Ms. Edwards exercise her right to redeem the property at "any time before the filing of a certificate of sale by the clerk of the court," § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2002), even though the clerk has yet to issue such a certificate. Instead, persuaded that Bankers Trust had been guilty of unidentified inequitable conduct, the trial court ruled that the foreclosure sale would "not be rescheduled again." In effect, it extinguished Bankers Trust's security interest by granting Ms. Edwards' motion, the earlier order of foreclosure notwithstanding.
This was error. Bankers Trust is entitled to have the property sold and the proceeds applied against the foreclosure judgment. See, e.g., First Nationwide Sav. v. Thomas, 513 So.2d 804, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ("A lender has the right, under the statutes, except under extraordinary circumstances not found in this record, to proceed with the sale of any real estate on which it has successfully foreclosed its mortgage."); Orlando Hyatt Assocs., Ltd. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 629 So.2d 975, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (" 'Under Florida law, a mortgage merely creates a lien against the land with title and right of possession remaining with the mortgagor/owner . to protect a borrower's due process rights, the courts have determined that a mortgagee can acquire possession upon default only through judicial foreclosure and purchase at sale.' ") (citing Four Star Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 409 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.1969), and Snow v. Nowlin, 125 Fla. 166, 169 So. 598 (1936)).
On remand, in the event Ms. Edwards can prove that inequitable conduct, if any, by Bankers Trust impeded earlier sale efforts and requires equitably adjusting the amount of Ms. Edwards' indebtedness to Bankers Trust, the trial court may make such an adjustment. See Applefield v. Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 137 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) ("Mortgage sales will be controlled by the Court so that no injustice will be done to either party . the circumstances of each particular case must be considered in determining in what manner the sale should be made.").
Reversed and remanded, with directions that a foreclosure sale be scheduled.
WOLF, C.J., CONCURS; ERVIN, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.
. While the trial court made findings that Bankers Trust's (unspecified) inequitable conduct gave rise to "extraordinary circumstances," the parties acknowledged at oral argument that no evidence to support such findings had been adduced. Counsel for Bankers Trust stated: "There was no evidence presented at the court below at the hearing giving rise to the order appealed from." Answering a question from the bench, counsel for Ms. Edwards agreed: "No sir, we did not have any sworn evidence."
. At oral argument, both parties interpreted the trial court's order as denying Bankers Trust the ability to force a sale of the mortgaged property. Counsel for Ms. Edwards stated: "I do not believe Judge Douglas . had in mind that this property could be sold under some other process." Similarly, counsel for Bankers Trust argued:
There is an alternative remedy; however, it would be, in our view, illogical to read Judge Douglas' order that way because whether it is by clerk's sale or sheriff's sale . if the Judge had intended for us to be able to force a sale, by clerk or by sheriff, of the property, he could have just denied the motion to confirm the prior sale filed by appellee below and just permitted us to go forward with the sale that Judge Douglas ordered to be held . I believe the only fair reading of Judge Douglas' order is that you can't execute on this property, but if she's got any other property, then you can execute on it .
When one looks at the practical effect of the Judge' s order, again, there would be no difference.... The procedures are similar . it's just a different officer of government who is carrying out the sale. So that if he had intended for us to be able to execute on the homestead . there would have been no purpose served, no benefit to either party, no burden to either party, by denying the motion to confirm the prior sale .
Asked whether the trial court's order had destroyed Bankers Trust's security interest in the property, Ms. Edwards' counsel replied: "Yes, sir, by [Bankers Trust's] own actions according to the [trial] judge and by the inequitable conduct ."