About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/retpmrtges0019 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 3D: MORTGAGES CHAPTER 1. CREATION OF MORTGAGES § 1.1 The Mortgage Concept; No Personal Liability Required C.A.1, 2015. Cit. and quot. in sup. Children who inherited property from their mother filed an action against lender that had granted mother a reverse mortgage on the property that was payable on mother's death, seeking to take the property free and clear of the mortgage lien even though the mortgage debt remained unpaid. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. Affirming, this court held that, although plaintiffs had standing to challenge defendant's right to foreclose on the ground that it failed to file a claim in mother's probate proceedings, such a challenge would be fruitless, because, under Restatement Third of Property: Mortgages § 1.1, defendant's right to initiate an in rem foreclosure proceeding against the property was wholly independent of the probate process. While the failure to file a claim in probate proceedings could extinguish personal liability on the note secured by the mortgage, that failure did not extinguish the mortgage itself. Summers v. Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC, 807 F.3d 351, 357. CHAPTER 3. MORTGAGOR'S EQUITY OF REDEMPTION AND MORTGAGE SUBSTITUTES § 3.1 The Mortgagor's Equity of Redemption and Agreements Limiting It Ariz.App.2015. Subsec. (c) cit. in ftn. to diss. op. Locksmith who was hired to change the locks on a house after a foreclosure brought a negligence action against landowners whose tenant, unaware of the foreclosure, shot plaintiff; plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligent in failing to inform tenant of the foreclosure and of the possibility that someone could inspect the property and change the locks. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendants owed him a duty of care under Arizona law. The dissent argued that defendants could not rely on Restatement Third of Property: Mortgages § 4.1 to claim that their deed of trust, which authorized lender to send someone to change the locks, was unenforceable, because Arizona law permitted deeds of trust to allow a trustee the right of possession. The dissent pointed out that § 3.1(c) was not relevant in this case. Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli, 238 Ariz. 538, 548, 363 P.3d 698, 708. CHAPTER 4. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES PRIOR TO FORECLOSURE § 4.1 Mortgage Creates Security Interest Only Ariz.App.2015. Cit. and quot. in diss. op. Locksmith who was hired after a foreclosure to change the locks on a house summary judgment brought a negligence action against landowners whose tenant, - l For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most