In a partition gone very wrong for one owner, the court upholds a $10.00 sheriff's sale of a property valued by the trial court to be $65,000.00.  Appellant's argument that respondent violated Rule 55.26 was found not to be preserved for appeal.  Further, the court did not find that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to set aside the sheriff's sale for lack of notice to appellant.  Ultimately, "market value is not the measure of adequacy in a judicial sale under Missouri law...[r]ather, the test for adequacy is the price received at the sale in comparison with what the Property would bring in a fair sheriff's sale."

Court summary:

Appellant Neena Hardin (“Hardin”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale of residential real estate co-owned by Hardin and her sister Respondent Sonya Long (“Long”). Hardin alleges that the sale should have been set aside because she had no notice of the sale and because the sale price was so inadequate that it raises the presumption of fraud.


Division III holds: Because Hardin offered no evidence as to what price the real estate may have brought at a fair sheriff’s sale, and the record contains no evidence of fraud, collusion, or deceit in connection with the sheriff’s sale of the property, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.


Download Long v. Hardin