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
*665 BLEIL, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the summary judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for trial.
I agree with Chief Justice Cornelius that the summary judgment evidence tending to show that the property’s value is far greater than $28,000.00 at least raises an inference that the property’s fair cash market value was grossly in excess of $28,000.00. This raises the fact question of whether the property was sold for a grossly inadequate price at the foreclosure sale. To my knowledge, no “venerable principle of the law of evidence” alters this conclusion. At the time of trial questions of what evidence is or is not admissible may be presented to the trial court.