Walter L. Medlin - Page 152

                                       - 77 -                                         
          should be given credit for the fair market value of the Citrus              
          County Property and found that the fair market value was $87,000.           
          The Circuit Court’s final judgment then determined that                     
          petitioner owed a remaining $20,834 on his guaranty obligation.             
          On December 31, 1986, petitioner asked for rehearing claiming               
          that at the time of the foreclosure sale in 1985, the Citrus                
          County Property had a fair market value far in excess of $87,000.           
          Petitioner alleged that the Citrus County appraiser’s records               
          indicated a fair market value of $133,000 and that petitioner’s             
          testimony was that the property value was, at an “absolute                  
          minimum”, at least $114,000.  Based on petitioner’s averments,              
          the Circuit Court for Orange County granted a rehearing as to the           
          fair market value of the Citrus County Property.  There is no               
          evidence that a rehearing ever occurred.  The parties eventually            
          reached a settlement, and on October 28, 1987, Freedom filed a              
          Satisfaction of Judgment stating that the $20,834 had been fully            
          satisfied.  Thus, petitioner’s remaining personal liability on              
          his guaranty was resolved approximately 2 years after the                   
          foreclosure sale had become final.                                          
               Petitioner’s basis in the property at the time of the                  
          foreclosure sale was $1,844.                                                
                                       OPINION                                        
               Respondent has raised as a new matter in his amendment to              
          answer an allegation that petitioner realized a gain of $112,156            






Page:  Previous  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011