PALM BEACH HORIZONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Palm Beach Horizons challenges the clerk's refusal to refund registry and sales fees after a foreclosure sale was invalidated due to the mortgagor's bankruptcy filing. The Florida appellate court affirmed the clerk's retention of fees, holding that the clerk has no statutory duty to refund such fees when the sale is voided by intervening bankruptcy protection.
No. The clerk is not required to refund registry and sales fees. The clerk's retention of such fees is proper where the clerk acts without knowledge of the bankruptcy filing and collects only mandatory statutory fees.
[1] A clerk of the circuit court is not required to refund registry and sales fees to a successful bidder at a foreclosure sale when the mortgagor files a suggestion of bankr…
[2] A clerk of the circuit court is entitled to statutory registry and sales fees from a foreclosure sale even if the sale is later invalidated due to a subsequent bankruptcy…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“whether the clerk of the circuit court must refund registry and sales fees to a successful bidder at a foreclosure sale where the mortgagor/debtor, prior to the sale and without written notice to the clerk, filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in federal court, requiring the sale to be later invalidated”
Statement of the issue being decided
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a foreclosure judgment, a public sale was conducted on June 8, 1998. The clerk issued a certificate of sale before 12:00 p.m. Between 2:00 a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
KREEGER, JUDITH L., Associate Judge.
The now familiar question in this appeal is whether the clerk of the circuit court must refund registry and sales fees to a successful bidder at a foreclosure sale where the mortgagor/debtor, prior to the sale and without written notice to the clerk, filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in federal court, requiring the sale to be later invalidated. We answered this question negatively in Wilken v. North County Company, 670 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and do so again in this case by affirming the order of the circuit court below.
In this case, following the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure, the trial court ordered public sale of the property for June 8, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. The sale was conducted some time that day, and the clerk issued the required certificate of sale shortly before noon that day. Between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m., the clerk received a suggestion of bankruptcy filed by the mortgagor/debtor. The record of the case below does not reflect at what hour the foreclosure sale was conducted, and it does not reflect that the clerk accepted any portion of the purchase price after receiving the suggestion of bankruptcy.
On June 16th the clerk paid itself the sale fee from the registry, and on June 20th appellant moved for the return of its entire bid deposit. On July 29th the clerk paid itself the registry fee, before the trial court ruled on appellant’s motion. The trial court ultimately granted appellant’s motion, ordering the return of the bid deposit minus the Clerk’s registry and sale fee.
Appellant makes the same argument this court heard and rejected in North County. In this case, like its predecessor, there is no “culpable” party. The record does not disclose anything to indicate misfeasance by the clerk' — the clerk promptly acted on the written information of the bankruptcy action as soon as the clerk received that information. The clerk conducted the sale without knowing the debt-or had invoked bankruptcy protection and the clerk collected the mandatory statutory fees. Appellant, the successful bidder, also proceeded without knowing about the bankruptcy stay. As we pointed out in North County, innocent buyers like appellant would be well served if the clerk would develop a method of notice to prospective bidders warning them of the particular risks associated with foreclosure sales. However, we remain reluctant to impose a notice requirement not mandated by statute.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE Cnty. Clerk of Court v. Gavidia (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…s later invalidated through no blunder of the clerk is of no consequence in determining whether or not the clerk is entitled to collect his or her administrative costs." Id. at 182. Similarly, in Palm Beach Horizons, Inc. v. Washington Mutual Bank, 744 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the Fourth District had before it an instance where there was no culpable party. In that case, the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale moved for the return of its entire bid deposit after the mortgagor/debtor file…
Authorities Cited
- Wilken v. N. Cnty. Co., Inc., 670 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)