Earl Wilson appeals the confirmation of a foreclosure sale of property the “property” that he formerly owned, alleging that the property was sold for less than its true market value. The property was sold to Prudential Industrial Properties, LLC “Prudential”, the lienholder, for $14,800,000, and Prudential applied for confirmation of the foreclosure sale under OCGA § 44-14-161 a. After a hearing on Prudential’s application, Wilson asked the trial court to either consider newly obtained evidence of the property’s true market value or reopen the hearing. The trial court denied Wilson’s motion and approved the sale to Prudential. For reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. Wilson first contends that the trial court erred in confirming the sale because Prudential did not present sufficient evidence to establish the true market value of the property. In confirming a nonjudicial 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 sold brought its true market value.1 The trial court sits as the trier of fact, and its findings of fact and conclusions of law have the effect of a jury verdict.2 Thus, we will not overturn a trial court’s decision regarding confirmation of a foreclosure sale if there is any evidence to support the decision.3 Additionally, “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.”4
In this case, Prudential was the only bidder at the foreclosure sale and purchased the property for $14,800,000. At the confirmation hearing, Prudential had the burden of proving that the true market value of the property was less than or equal to this sum.5 Prudential’s expert witness in the field of real estate appraisal, Sherry Watkins, testified that, in her opinion, the property’s value as of the date of the foreclosure sale was $13,290,000. Nevertheless, Wilson argues that Prudential failed to carry its burden because Watkins’ testimony was speculative, unsupported by the facts, and should have been disregarded by the trial court.
