Appellants 131 Ralph McGill Boulevard, LLC “RMB”, Inman Park Properties, Inc. “IPP”, and Jeffrey M. Notrica “Notrica” appeal from the Fulton County Superior Court’s order confirming a non-judicial sale of property formerly owned by RMB. The foreclosure sale was conducted by appellee First Intercontinental Bank the “Bank”. Appellants contend that at the foreclosure sale, the property was sold at less than its true market value. Finding no error, we affirm. In order to confirm a non-judicial foreclosure sale, the trial court “shall require evidence to show the true market value of the property sold . . . and shall not confirm the sale unless it is satisfied that the property so sold brought its true market value on such foreclosure sale.”1 The term “true market value,” which is interchangeable with the term “fair market value,”2 means “the price that the property will bring when it is offered for sale by one who is not obligated, but has the desire to sell it, and is bought by one who wishes to buy it, but is not under a necessity to do so.”3 In a confirmation proceeding, the trial court sits as the trier of fact, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is any evidence to support them.4 Further, on appellate review, “we do not determine witness credibility or weigh the evidence and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment.”5
So viewed, the record reflects that the property was sold to the Bank for $1,080,000 on August 4, 2009, pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed to secure debt from RMB in favor of the Bank.6 On September 1, 2009, the Bank filed a petition for confirmation of the foreclosure sale under OCGA § 44-14-161. On November 27, 2009, IPP served on the Bank by mail written discovery requests, including a single request for admission, interrogatories, and request for production of documents. The request for admission stated: “Please admit that the true market value of the Property was greater than $1,080,000.00 on August 4, 2009.” The Bank’s responses to these pleadings, including its response to the request for admission, were due on December 30, 2009,7 but were actually served on opposing counsel on December 31, 2009, one day late.
