(logo) Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund Inc.

Casenotes

Wisconsin

Foreclosure

Park Bank v Zaddo Holdings, LLC, 2008 AP 1367 (Wis Ct App, 2009).

Facts:Zaddo Holdings, LLC (Zaddo) mortgaged a commercial property to Park Bank in February 2005 to secure a $1,575,000 loan. A foreclosure action on the mortgage followed in October 2006, with $702,794.17 left outstanding on the loan. In January 2007, a judgment of foreclosure was issued and a sheriff's sale was held in November 2007. There was only one bidder for the property, Park Bank, and the final bid was $800,000.

Zaddo objected to the confirmation of the $800,000 price. He argued that the property had been valued much higher in the past-citing examples of amounts between $1,200,000 and $2,100,000 from 2005 and 2007. While the lower court expressed discomfort with the $800,000 price, it accepted Park Bank's argument that the market conditions had changed. Furthermore, Park Bank argued that the appraisal and assessment values presented to Zaddo had been influenced by the sales price that Zaddo had paid for the property.

Zaddo further objected to the fact that Park Bank had secured a buyer for the property at $1,000,000. It argued that, because the bank was able to sell the property at that price, another sheriff's sale could surely reach a price point of at least $1,000,000. The lower court was unconvinced, citing the offer's contingency on a closing that took place May 30, 2008. as indication that the same outcome would not necessarily result from a sheriff's sale. Park Bank further indicated that it was intending to apply its $900,000 revenue on the transaction to the outstanding loan.

Ultimately, the lower court upheld the sheriff's sale and ordered the $900,000 applied to the loan, with the difference going to Zaddo. However, Zaddo appealed the order upholding the sheriff's sale.

Holding:Affirmed. The court of appeals pointed to the fact that the confirmation of a sheriff's sale is within the discretion of the circuit court. "An exercise of discretion will be sustained where the circuit court considered the facts of record under the proper legal standard and reasoned its way to a rational conclusion." It further clarified that it was the court's duty to ascertain that fair value had been credited to the mortgage debt and that fair value was not necessarily equal to market value. The court reasoned that fair value is a reasonable value that seems acceptable to the court. The court therefore rejected any argument of Zaddo's centering on the issue of whether $800,000 truly was a reasonable market price for the property.

As a result, the court of appeals found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. The lower court considered all the facts, including both the assessments offered by Zaddo and the arguments made by Park Bank. The court reminded that in a case where either outcome would be plausible based on the evidence, the discretion of the lower court is to be respected. Because the record indicated that the lower court considered all the evidence in question, the court of appeals did not overturn the decision of the fact-finder.

© ATG|Casenotes/Bulletin 1001_v3n1

[Last update: 1-18-10]