# Berry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · August 27, 2010 · 57 So. 3d 142

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4863286

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephanie BERRY and Eva Berry v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-1
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 27, 2010
- **Citations:** 57 So. 3d 142; 2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 243; 2010 WL 3377712
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pittman
- **Judges:** Bryan, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4863286

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, when an ejectment-action plaintiff bases his or her claim to legal title on a foreclosure deed, evidence tending to prove that the foreclosure sale and resulting foreclosure deed were invalid tends to prove an affirmative defense to the ejectment claim rather tha…

## Opinion text

PITTMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the Berrys as the non-movants, the foreclosed property was worth between $84,800 and $86,500 but fetched $33,915 at the judicial sale, an amount that is between 39% and 40% of the property’s fair-market value. As a general rule, a naked claim of inadequacy of a winning bid will not legally support impeaching the validity of a judicial sale “unless the inadequacy is so glaring and grossly disproportionate to the real value of the property as at once to shock the understanding and conscience of an honest and just man and sufficient to create the presumption of fraud.” Martin v. Jones, 268 Ala. 286, 288 , 105 So.2d 860, 863 (1958); accord Hayden v. Smith, 216 Ala. 428, 430-31 , 113 So. 293, 295 (1927). “The decided cases indicate that in general a price less than one-third of the value of the land will be regarded as grossly inadequate.” Hayden, 216 Ala. at 431 , 113 So. at 295 . Because I cannot conclude, on these facts, that the price realized at the foreclosure sale was so low as to shock the conscience, I respectfully dissent from the reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4863286. Public record. Not legal advice.