Opinion
No. CV 00 0064139 S
November 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Procedural Background
This matter is a partition sale of property located at 476 Woodstock Avenue, Putnam. Attorney Mark Brouillard was appointed committee of sale. The trial court approved a sale on August 21, 2006. Defendant Howard Bove appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court on August 21, 2007. The committee has been notified by the buyers that they wished to pay a reduced sales price or receive a refund of their deposit because of "the fact that the market change has taken place WELL AFTER our 30 day expected close date . . ." (Emphasis in the original.)
The sale was held in July of 2006 Nancy Besardi and Francis Knapik were the successful bidders at $227,000 and placed a deposit of $17,500, 10% of the appraised value of $175,000.
Finding of Facts
1. The Bond for deed provided "It is expressly agreed and understood . . . that transfer of title shall be within thirty days from the date of approval of said sale by the Superior Court . . or at such other time as said Court may order."
2. The sale took place in July of 2006 but because of the appeal the final effective approval of the sale did not occur until August 21, 2007.
3. The fair market was determined to be $175,000 on March 6, 2006 which is the same value found in the judgment ordering the sale.
4. At the sale on July 29, 2006, seventeen bids were received. The 6th bid was for $175,000. Bids 7 through 17 were above $175,000. The final bid was $227,000.
5. The court finds persuasive the testimony of the buyer's witness Rachael Johnson that the property has a present value of $179,000.
Conclusion of Law CT Page 18799
1. The issue of a defaulting bidder is dealt with in Wilcox v. Willard Shopping Center Associates, 23 Conn.App. 129 (1990). In Wilcox the court confirmed the partition sale, ruling there was no justifiable excuse for nonperformance and declared the bidder's $100,000 deposit forfeited.2. In Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Burgos, 227 Conn. 116 (1993), purchasers claimed prejudice by delay incident to an appeal. Certain of the buyer's investors withdrew. Apparently this was sufficient reason to return the deposit.
3. It is generally recognized that judicial sales carry inherent risks, which is why they usually bring in less than would be expected in a private sale where these conditions are not present. New England Savings Bank v. Lopex, 227 Conn. 270 (1993) (dissent).
Conclusion
The buyers made several changed condition claims without sufficient supporting evidence. They did prove that they paid considerably more than the $175,000 court determined value contained in the judgment ordering the sale. The buyers argued that the value on the date of the sale was greater than the appraised value and value found by the court of $175,000. They proved that they bid $227,000. They did not prove that the property had a fair market value of $227,000 on the date of sale. In fact, their deposit of $17,500 was based on the court's determination of a $175,000 value. The fact that the buyer, at a judicial sale, bid more than the court-determined market value does not justify nonperformance.
The committee is advised to extend to the buyers the period of forty-five days from the date of the decision to close on the sale or the deposit is forfeited.