Diplomat Construction, Inc., Mukesh C. Patel, and Rajesh C. Patel appeal from a superior court’s order confirming the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of a hotel leasehold interest held by State Bank of Texas the “Lender” under a deed securing a $10,500,000 promissory note executed by Diplomat and guaranteed by the Patels. The Appellants contend that 1 the evidence was insufficient to show that the property brought its true market value at auction, 2 the superior court erred by sustaining a certain hearsay objection, 3 the foreclosure advertisements were erroneous and therefore impeded the auction, 4 the Lender’s conduct at the auction improperly chilled bidding at the auction, and 5 the superior court erroneously excluded certain testimony by their expert. For the reasons the follow, we affirm. In confirming a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under OCGA § 44-14-161, the trial court shall require evidence to show the true market value of the property sold under the powers and shall not confirm the sale unless it is satisfied that the property so sold brought its true market value on such foreclosure sale. The trial judge in a confirmation proceeding sits as the trier of fact, and its factual findings and conclusions have the effect of a jury verdict. Thus, witness credibility and the weight of the evidence proffered by the parties at a confirmation hearing are to be judged by the trial court, and not this Court on appeal. For this reason, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision if there is any evidence to support it, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment.1 So viewed, the record shows that after the Appellants defaulted on their obligations under the note and guaranties, the Lender initiated foreclosure proceedings.2 The Lender sent the Appellants a notice of sale under power and advertised the sale by publication, including a description of the property matching that in the deed, for four weeks prior to the foreclosure sale. On the day of the auction, the Lender was represented by an attorney, who stayed in contact with the Lender by telephone during the auction. The Patels were present and videotaped the auction,3 and an unaffiliated party Birju Patel participated in the bidding via a representative, who had in her possession $6 million in funds with authorization to bid up to $2.5 million more. The bidding began at approximately $3 million, and both Birju and the Lender engaged in multiple rounds of bidding in $50,000 increments. On three occasions during the bidding process, the Lender’s representative checked with Birju’s representative to confirm that the representative had adequate funds to cover the pending bid. After each occasion, the bidding resumed, and when the Lender entered a bid of $4.6 million, Birju did not counter, and the Lender became the holder of the successful bid.
The Lender petitioned the superior court to confirm the sale, and a two-day evidentiary hearing was held pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-161, at which hearing the Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the sale advertisement, the regularity of the auction, and the adequacy of the selling price. Following the hearing, the superior court entered an order confirming the sale, giving rise to this appeal.
