The recent foreclosure epidemic in Florida has resulted in skyrocketing numbers of properties being auctioned off at foreclosure sales. An increasing number of these auctions are being challenged by unsuccessful bidders based on procedural irregularities in the sale process. In Bay County, Florida, a successful bidder at a foreclosure auction is required to immediately tender 5% of the final bid in cash or cashier’s check to the Clerk of Court. In a recent matter; Walter Thomas Jagodinski v. Washington Mututal Bank, the successful bidders deposited the requisite 5% of the purchase price with the clerk by means of a check from their attorneys’ law firm three hours after the sale was complete. The property’s third highest bidder challenged the sale claiming that the three hour delay was a departure from the immediate tender requirement and that a check from a lawfirm was inconsistent with the cash or cashiers check requirement. The Bay County Trial Court agreed with the unsuccessful bidder, vacated the sale, and ordered a new sale to take place. However, the First District Court of Appeals, recently issued its opinion reversing the Trial Court’s ruling and upholding the sale.
The First DCA opined that even if there was a procedural deficiency in the sale, the unsuccessful bidder did not have standing to buy an essay uk . Following the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision in Heilman v. Suburban Coastal Corp, 506 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) , the First DCA stated that a bidder in a foreclosures sale, who is not a party to the foreclosure proceeding, generally only has standing to challenge the validity of a particular bid. In that instance the bidder’s objection is limited to whether the challenged bid exceeds his own and whether payment in accordance with the successful bid is forthcoming. Since the unsuccessful bidder’s challenge was not based on either of these issues, he was deemed to lack standing to challenge the sale and the order of the trial court vacating the sale was reversed with orders for it to be upheld.
Walter Thomas Jagodinski and Wife Donna Sue Sessoms v. Washinton Mutual Bank, et al; Case No.: 1D10-2746
