Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hood v. Driscoll

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

April 28, 2016

FELTON R. HOOD, et ux.
v.
JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III, et al., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County. William O. Carr, JUDGE.

         ARGUED BY: Richard I. Chaifetz of Columbia, MD. FOR APPELLANT

         ARGUED BY: Robert H. Hillman (Kimberly L. Britt, Samuel I. White, PC on the brief) all of Rockville, MD. FOR APPELLEE

         ARGUED BEFORE: Woodward, Leahy, Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Wilner, J.

          OPINION

Page 910

         [227 Md.App. 691] Wilner, J.

         In 2007, appellants executed a note in the amount of $345,000 and, as security for the note, a deed of trust on their home in Harford County. The note called for interest on the loan at the rate of 6.805 percent. Appellants defaulted on their obligations under the note and deed of trust, and, in July [227 Md.App. 692] 2013, the substitute trustees under the deed of trust instituted foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court for Harford County. Appellants were able to forestall a sale of the property for two-and-a-half years, first by requesting mediation, which failed, and then seeking protection from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which was partly successful. The Bankruptcy Court discharged them from the underlying debt but permitted the sale to proceed.

         The sale was conducted on January 21, 2015. In the Notice of Sale sent to appellants and published in two newspapers of general circulation in the county earlier that month, the trustees stated, as one of the terms of sale, that interest would accrue on any unpaid part of the purchase price at the rate of 6.805 percent - the same rate as provided in the note - from the date of sale to the date of settlement. No objection was made to that provision by appellants prior to the sale. The property was sold to Federal National Mortgage Association, for $490,005, that being the highest bid and the full amount of the debt that had been owed by appellants and discharged in bankruptcy. In his Report of Sale, filed on February 18, 2015, the substitute trustee affirmed that the sale was fairly made and that the property brought a fair price. The purchaser filed the required affidavit that no one was discouraged from bidding.

Page 911

          The seeds of this appeal were planted on March 20, 2015, when appellants filed exceptions to the foreclosure sale. The sole ground raised by them was that the interest rate on the purchase price was " excessive." With no supporting documentation, but with a request for a hearing, they claimed that " [i]t is well known and public knowledge that the current prevailing interest rate on mortgage loans is in the vicinity of 4 percent and the Court may take judicial notice of this fact under Rule 5-201(b) of the Maryland Rules." They contended that, in the absence of payment terms set in the lien instrument, terms set by the trustee must be reasonable and that it was not reasonable to require the purchaser to pay interest on the purchase price at the rate of 6.805 percent when the prevailing rate for mortgage loans was only about four percent. [227 Md.App. 693] They urged that " it is quite likely that," absent the higher rate " the price could have been higher," and thus " a possibility that there could have been sufficient proceeds to yield some funds to Defendants."

         The substitute trustee responded that (1) there was nothing improper about requiring the purchaser to pay the same rate appellants had agreed to pay, (2) if there was anything improper, it should have been raised in a pre-sale motion to enjoin the sale, (3) it is not a proper ground for exceptions designed to upset a sale, and (4) appellants were not prejudiced in any event, as charging a lesser rate would have reduced the amount paid for the property.

         The court held a hearing on the exceptions, which mostly was limited to argument. The one item of evidence was in the form of a stipulation that, if called to testify, an expert retained by appellants would opine that the 6.805 rate " was too high given the current market conditions and that a lower market based rate would yield a higher sale price and perhaps produced more qualified buyers." The proffer did not include any backup data for that opinion. The court accepted the proffered testimony, not as being persuasive but merely that the expert would so testify. The court listened to argument and, three weeks later, filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the exceptions and ratifying the sale. The court assigned three reasons for ruling as it did: first, that the issues raised by appellants " were not filed in a timely fashion; " second, that those issues " are inappropriately raised at this stage of the proceeding; " and third, assuming that appellants' challenge to the sale was timely raised, it was legally insufficient to deny the trustee's request to ratify the sale.

         We believe that the court erred in its first two conclusions but not in the third, which is dispositive.

         Timeliness; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.