Upchurch v. Chaney

Any confusion regarding the acceptable method of payment was due to the appellees failure to adequately prepare for the sale, since O.C.G.A. § 9-13-166 plainly states that a winning bid in a "for cash" judicial sale can be tendered by cash, certified check or cashier's check.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After Harold Upchurch submitted the successful bid at a judicial sale, the receiver who conducted the sale moved the trial court to confirm it. The trial court refused to confirm the sale, however, stating that the appellees’ confusion regarding the acceptable method of payment at the judicial sale rendered the sale invalid. Upchurch appeals. Because the evidence shows that the sale was properly and fairly held, and that any purported confusion resulted from the appellees’ own failure to adequately prepare for the sale, and did not affect the results of the sale, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to confirm it. Accordingly, we reverse. When this matter appeared before this Court previously, we affirmed the trial court’s decision to order an equitable partition and judicial sale of the disputed property.1 After being properly advertised in the county’s legal organ,2 the judicial sale was conducted on the Harris County courthouse steps on August 2, 2005, the first Tuesday of the month.3 The receiver announced the terms of the sale, and that the winning bid could be submitted by cash, cashier’s check, or certified check, but not by personal check. Appellees’ voiced no objection at that time. The appellees’ highest bid was $241,000. Upchurch submitted the ultimately successful bid of $245,00.00, which he paid by a cashier’s check that had been issued by a local bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The receiver then filed a motion to confirm the sale. In spite of the fact that the sale complied with the statutory requirements for a judicial sale,4 the appellees objected, claiming that they believed that the trial court’s order that the sale be conducted “for cash” meant that only hard currency, rather than a cashier’s check, would be acceptable as payment. The trial court ordered that the sale be set aside.5

Upchurch v. Chaney

Any confusion regarding the acceptable method of payment was due to the appellees failure to adequately prepare for the sale, since O.C.G.A. § 9-13-166 plainly states that a winning bid in a "for cash" judicial sale can be tendered by cash, certified check or cashier's check.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report