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

Case Citations [i] (July 2016 through April 2017)

handle is hein.ali/retpmrtges0020 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 3D: MORTGAGES CHAPTER 2. FUTURE ADVANCES § 2.1 Future Advances N.J.2016. Cit. in journal article and law review article cit. in sup. (general cite); com. (a) cit. and quot. in sup. After mortgagors and guarantor defaulted on their obligations to mortgagee, mortgagee brought an action against guarantor, seeking to foreclose on defendant's mortgages that were used to secure mortgagors' financing, alleging that defendant's intervening mortgage by a third party was subordinate to all of her mortgagors with plaintiff. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed. This court affirmed, holding that defendant's intervening lien took priority over optional advances made by plaintiff after it received actual notice of the intervening lien. Citing Restatement Third of Property: Mortgages § 2.1, the court explained that a personal guaranty was included in the definition of a future advance mortgage, and determined that the common-law rule that actual notice of an intervening lien subordinated a mortgage containing optional future advances governed in this case. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Benun, 140 A.3d 547, 552, 553, 560, 561. CHAPTER 3. MORTGAGOR'S EQUITY OF REDEMPTION AND MORTGAGE SUBSTITUTES § 3.1 The Mortgagor's Equity of Redemption and Agreements Limiting It Alaska, 2016. Com. (a) quot. in diss. op. and cit. in ftn. to diss. op. Borrowers sued company that pursued nonjudicial deed-of-trust foreclosures, alleging that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending plaintiffs a notice of default on their home loan that failed to state the full amount due. The trial court concluded that defendant was a debt collector subject to liability under the Act and awarded plaintiffs damages. This court affirmed. The dissent argued that defendant was not a debt collector subject to the entire Act under the facts of this case, because it only pursued nonjudicial foreclosures on deeds of trust and did not also attempt to collect money on the underlying notes. The dissent cited Restatement Third of Property: Mortgages §§ 3.1 and 4.1 in support of its argument that a deed of trust was interdependent yet distinct from the debt it secured, and that the nonjudicial foreclosure process did not in and of itself collect a debt, but rather, called for the vesting and divesting of title to real property according to the parties' prior agreement. Alaska Trustee, LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207, 228. CHAPTER 4. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES PRIOR TO FORECLOSURE § 4.1 Mortgage Creates Security Interest Only A L m 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