## Facts

- Two brothers, Julian E. Wansley and Tom L. Wansley, co-owned about 4,200 acres of farmland and obtained annual crop-production loans from First National Bank of Vicksburg for many years.
- To secure increasing indebtedness, Tom and his wife executed a deed of trust (1982) and Julian and his wife executed a deed of trust (1983), each securing large outstanding balances and future advances through the 1984 crop year.
- The named trustee, John C. Wheeless, Jr., was the Bank’s general counsel and a member of its board of directors.
- After the 1984 crop was harvested and sold, the borrowers could not pay a substantial portion of the debt.
- The trustee conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sales under the deeds of trust.
- At each sale, the Bank was the sole bidder and bid $500,000 for each brother’s interest; the trustee accepted the bids and conveyed by trustee’s deeds to the Bank.
- The borrowers sued to cancel and set aside the trustee’s deeds, arguing the trustee was not “disinterested” due to his connections to the Bank.
- The Bank counterclaimed to confirm its title and for deficiency judgments; the chancery court confirmed title in the Bank and entered deficiencies against both couples.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is invalid or voidable solely because the deed-of-trust trustee has professional and financial ties to the mortgagee.
2. What standard governs judicial review of deed-of-trust foreclosure sales—formal trustee “disinterest” or commercial reasonableness of the sale’s conduct.
3. Whether, absent proof of unfairness or prejudice, the mortgagor may set aside the sale and defeat deficiency judgments based only on the trustee’s affiliation.

## Decision

- On petition for rehearing, the Mississippi Supreme Court withdrew its earlier opinion and affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.
- The Court held that trustee independence is not a legally necessary condition to validate a deed-of-trust foreclosure.
- The controlling inquiry is whether “every aspect of the sale” was commercially reasonable, including method, advertising, time, place, and terms.
- Because the record showed no commercially unreasonable conduct, no procedural irregularities, and no demonstrated prejudice tied to the trustee’s affiliation, the foreclosure sales were upheld.
- The Court reinstated confirmation of the Bank’s title and the deficiency judgments.

## Legal Principles

- A trustee’s relationship with the mortgagee does not, by itself, render a deed-of-trust foreclosure sale invalid.
- Courts assess the validity of a nonjudicial foreclosure by examining the commercial reasonableness of the entire sale process (including method, advertising, timing, location, and terms).
- The mortgagor must show unfairness, overreaching, chilled bidding, or other prejudice affecting the sale; affiliation alone is insufficient.
- Deficiency judgments may stand when the foreclosure sale is upheld and no actionable irregularity is proven.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that deed-of-trust foreclosures are not set aside solely because the trustee has ties to the lender; the dispositive question is whether the sale was commercially reasonable and free from unfairness that caused prejudice to the mortgagor.


Wansley v. First Nat’l Bank of Vicksburg, 566 So. 2d 1218 (Miss. 1990)