holding that evidence of bank’s misrepresentations prevented property owner from appearing at foreclosure sale
How later courts described this case
- holding that evidence of bank’s misrepresentations prevented property owner from appearing at foreclosure sale
- holding fact issue did not exist regarding inadequate sale price where there was no evidence of land's market value at time of foreclosure sale
- reversing foreclosure after holding that mortgage-holder’s representations chilled bidding at foreclosure sale
- “A party seeking damages or invalidation of the sale under this theory must show that any damage, loss, or material injury was due to the irregularity in the foreclosure sale.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in the majority opinion, except its conclusion in discussion of Point IV that the appellants did not submit summary judgment evidence of a gross inadequacy of price. In my opinion, evidence that property having an actual value of more than $500,000.00 sold at a foreclosure sale for only $28,000.00 at least raises an inference that the property’s fair cash market value was grossly in excess of $28,000.00, and thus raises a fact issue on the question whether the property brought a grossly inadequate price at the foreclosure sale.