James Hammock and Emily Hammock appeal the denial of their application for confirmation of a foreclosure sale under power, arguing that the order was not supported by the evidence. We disagree and affirm. The material facts are not in dispute. The Hammocks sold their Stockbridge home to Michael Shane Issa in exchange for a promissory note in the amount of $319,500 and a deed to secure debt. The deed included a power-of-sale provision authorizing the Hammocks to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure in the event of default. As alleged in the Hammocks’ subsequent report of foreclosure sale and application for confirmation of foreclosure sale under power, Issa defaulted on the note by failing to make payments when due, to provide proof of insurance, or to timely pay the taxes on the property. After publishing the foreclosure notice, the Hammocks offered the property for auction on June 1, 2010. The Hammocks, who were the only bidders, purchased the property for $230,000.1 The Hammocks then filed their petition for confirmation of the sale pursuant to OCGA § 44-14-161.
At the confirmation hearing, the Hammocks established that the sale was properly noticed and advertised and then submitted the testimony of their expert appraiser, Tim Ballew.2 Ballew testified that in his opinion, the fair market value of the property was $230,000. To reach this conclusion, Ballew reviewed the tax records of the property to discern physical data, including zoning and square footage, visually inspected the outside of the property from the street, and compared it to recent sales of similar homes in the area. Ballew’s written appraisal was also admitted into evidence without objection. Issa put forth no evidence of value, expert or otherwise, to contradict Ballew’s opinion. Instead, he cross-examined Ballew as to whether it was necessary to conduct an interior inspection of the house to conduct the appraisal. Ballew responded, I don’t feel that an interior inspection would have made much of a difference on this property. . . . It was consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood and certainly consistent with the sales that I use to support value. . . Certainly there are issues that could be unknown to me that would affect value, but from the street there were none that were obvious. Issa followed up by asking, “Since we have some assumption there’s some room for a variable in there” Ballew responded, “Possible. Depending on condition. But like I said, at the time I inspected the property it appeared to be in average condition and consistent with the condition of other homes in the neighborhood.”
