Opinion ID: 867575
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Determining gross inadequacy

Text: ¶ 29 There is an additional problem, of course, in determining just when a price is grossly inadequate. However, guidance can be found in the comment to Section 8.3: Gross inadequacy cannot be precisely defined in terms of a specific percentage of fair market value. Generally, however, a court is warranted in invalidating a sale where the price is less than 20 percent of fair market value and, absent other foreclosure defects, is usually not warranted in invalidating a sale that yields in excess of that amount. RESTATEMENT § 8.3 cmt. b (emphasis added). In Fenton, our court of appeals noted, even assuming that the price was inadequate, that fact standing alone would not justify setting aside the trustee's sale ... `there must be in addition proof of some element of fraud, unfairness, or oppression as accounts for and brings about the inadequacy of price.' 167 Ariz. at 270, 806 P.2d at 364 (quoting C.R. Oller v. Sonoma County Land Title Co., 137 Cal.App.2d 633, 290 P.2d 880, 882 (1955) (emphasis added)). We believe gross inadequacy is proof of unfairness, and as we have seen, gross inadequacy, as defined in comment b to RESTATEMENT § 8.3, is more than inadequacy. Thus, a rule allowing limited judicial oversight does not conflict with Fenton it is still the law in Arizona that trustee's sales will not be set aside for inadequacy of price without more. Further, the statutory presumption of compliance in A.R.S. § 33-811(A) need not be weakened today; issuance of a trustee's deed carries with it the presumption of compliance with all requirements.