Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D borrowed money from Homecomings, executed a promissory note in favor of Homecomings, and secured the note with a mortgage naming the nominee of Homecomings, Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc., (MERS), as the mortgagee. P was assigned the legal title to the mortgage. D defaulted, and P sued to foreclose the mortgage by action. P also sought a deficiency judgment on the note. The district court granted P's motion for summary judgment against D, awarded the bank a decree of foreclosure, and directed the sheriff to sell the mortgaged premises. D was awarded the bank a money judgment of $159,610.23. D moved to vacate the summary judgment; P could not foreclose the mortgage, nor could it recover on the note, because P had failed to show that it had been assigned the note associated with the mortgage. The court vacated the money judgment but still allowed the sheriff's sale to proceed. At the sheriff's sale, P bought the foreclosed premises with a credit bid of $98,540. Waiving its claim for a deficiency judgment, P then moved the district court for an order confirming the sheriff's sale. D claimed the foreclosure was defective because P failed to show that it had obtained any rights to the note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose or purchase the premises at the sheriff's sale. The district court confirmed the sheriff's sale, reduced the money judgment against appellants from $159,610.23 to $98,540 because the bank waived its deficiency. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co