Goldberg v. Frick Electric Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. D'Aoust v. Diamond

    424 Md. 549 (Md. 2012)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the three-part test applied in Rice in favor of a two-part test for determining whether an individual is subject to absolute judicial immunity that considers whether " the act performed was by a judicial officer; and the act was a judicial act"

    Thus, the trustee's power in such a situation โ€œemanate[s] from the court.โ€ Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 693, 770 A.2d 182, 188 (2001) (quotation omitted). In this relationship between the court and the trustee, the court is the vendor and the trustee is an agent of the court.

  2. Wills v. One W. Bank, FSB

    No. 0030 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 11, 2016)

    The trial court decided that the sheriff's sale in this case did not. In reaching this result, the court relied upon Goldberg v. Frick Electric Co., 363 Md. 683, 691 (2001), and McCartney v. Frost, 282 Md. 631, 636 (1978) for the proposition that the rule of caveat emptor generally applies in sheriffs' sales. The court concluded that, because the rule of caveat emptor, the sheriff's sale did not extinguish Freedom Acquisition's deed of trust in the Property.

  3. Griffin v. Shapiro

    857 A.2d 519 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming circuit court's conclusion that foreclosure price that was between 45% and 53% of property's value did not shock the conscience

    The court does not direct what shall be levied or sold, or how the sale shall be made. The law is the officer's only guide.Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 693, 770 A.2d 182 (2001) (quoting Judicial and Execution Sales ยง 46 (1873)). A sheriff has discretion when conducting a sale, but the sale "should be so conducted as to promote competition and to secure the best price."

  4. R&J Contractor Servs. v. Vancamp

    652 B.R. 237 (D. Md. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    A Sheriff's sale is "[a] forced sale of real property" to accomplish satisfaction of a judgment, in which "[t]he court does not direct what shall be levied or sold, or how the sale shall be made," but rather is conducted by a sheriff. Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 692-93, 770 A.2d 182, 187-88 (2001). On January 7, 2022, R&J filed a Proof of Claim.

  5. Daniels v. Holtz

    794 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 2010)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding an appraisal of a corporation could factor in capital gains tax liability when the corporation was to be sold at a sheriff's sale

    In this context, courts also provide, a sheriffs sale cannot be set aside for irregularity, unfairness, or fraud without a demonstration of prejudice. See Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 770 A.2d 182, 194 (Md. 2001) ("[Our sister states] have found that [sheriffs or judicial] sales may be set aside when, there has been some form of misrepresentation or mistake, creating a prejudicial effect." (Emphasis added)); cf. Farmers Sav. Bank v. Ger-hart, 372 N.W.2d 238, 244 (Iowa 1985) (holding in the context of mistake of law or fact, that "relief should be granted only when enforcement of the sale would impose an oppressive burden on the party seeking vacation").

  6. Steward v. Moskowitz

    5 A.3d 638 (D.C. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Analyzing similar federal statute, analogizing it to tax sales of real property, and requiring strict compliance with notice requirements

    In the case of a judicial sale, such as a tax sale or a sale in lieu of partition, and in the case of a foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a power contained in the mortgage, the court itself is regarded as the vendor, and the trustee conducting the sale is considered to be the court's agent.Goldberg v. Frick Electric Co., Inc., 363 Md. 683, 770 A.2d 182, 187-88 (2001). However,

  7. Scoville Street Corp. v. Dist. TLC Trust

    857 A.2d 1071 (D.C. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    See Board of Comm'rs v. Timroth, 87 P.3d 102 (Colo. 2004); Buk Lhu v. Dignoti, 431 Mass. 292, 727 N.E.2d 73 (2000); Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 770 A.2d 182 (2001); Chicago, St. Paul, Min. Omaha Ry. Co. v. Washburn Land Co., 165 Wis. 125, 161 N.W. 358 (1917). However, we need not resolve the issues as to whether equity will permit the reformation of a deed because of a mutual mistake of fact, or whether Scoville filed its lawsuit against District TLC and the other appellees within the 90-day window mandated by D.C. Code ยง 47-1303.04(f)(2) and (4), or whether there is an applicable exception to the 90-day requirement.