Sawyer v. Novak, 206 Md. 80

110 A.2d 517 (1955) · Court of Appeals of Maryland · October 11, 2001 · No. No. 11, October Term, 1954

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a decree ratifying a foreclosure sale of mortgaged property. The mortgagor argued that the property was inadequately advertised and that the sale price was inadequate, while the appellee challenged the completeness of the appellate record. The court held that the advertising omission was not sufficiently prejudicial, the price was not grossly inadequate, and affirmed the decree.

Holdings

  1. An appeal should not be dismissed for failure to print every portion of the record when there is a reasonable difference of opinion about what evidence is material, the omitted evidence is supplied before the hearing, and accepting it causes no prejudice to the appellee or inconvenience to the court.
  2. Failure to fully describe the nature and extent of improvements in a foreclosure-sale advertisement does not require vacating the sale unless the omission prejudiced the sale at a fair and adequate price and a resale would likely produce a greater amount.
  3. The foreclosure sale should not be set aside because the evidence did not establish that the $20,600 price was grossly inadequate or that the Chancellor's finding was clearly wrong.
  4. A bona fide purchaser's rights are not affected by reversal of an order ratifying a foreclosure sale when the appellant did not file an appeal bond or obtain a stay, absent unfairness or collusion by the purchaser in making the sale.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant initially failed to print all evidence bearing on the adequacy of the foreclosure-sale price.
  2. Whether the foreclosure sale should be vacated because the advertisement did not fully describe the property's improvements, including the four apartments.
  3. Whether the foreclosure sale should be vacated because the price obtained was inadequate.
  4. Whether the purchaser's rights were affected by the absence of an appeal bond or stay and by the execution and recording of the deed after the appeal was taken.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (20)

  • Sunshine Laundry Corp. v. White, 197 Md. 582(followed)
  • Gmurek v. Kajder, 203 Md. 437(followed)
  • Kenny v. McAllister, 198 Md. 521(followed)
  • Klein v. Dougherty, 200 Md. 22(followed)
  • Musser v. Bank of Takoma Park, 195 Md. 100(distinguished)
  • Cockey v. Hampson, 140 Md. 551(followed)
  • Holton Park Co. v. Gary, 133 Md. 509, 517(followed)
  • Long v. Worden, 148 Md. 115, 122(followed)
  • Welch v. Byerly, 150 Md. 107, 112(followed)
  • Bregel v. Beckman, 157 Md. 471(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…