Opinion
No. 5886.
Submitted May 7, 1969.
Decided July 30, 1969.
1. The funds remaining from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale after satisfaction of obligations secured by real estate mortgages on the foreclosed property and payment of costs of foreclosure were held to have been properly distributed in accordance with an agreement of the creditors having claims reduced to judgment against the mortgagor.
2. Conflicts in the evidence as well as the belief or disbelief of witnesses and parties are for the trier of facts to resolve.
This is a bill of interpleader tried by a master, Leonard C. Hardwick. He made certain findings and recommendations as to the distribution of the funds interpleaded. The Presiding Justice (Leahy, C.J.) ordered a decree in accordance with the master's recommendations and reserved and transferred the exceptions of the defendant Mary H. Clark to the decree.
Shute, Engel Frasier, for the plaintiff, filed no brief.
Flynn, Powell McGuirk, for the defendant Ray The Mover, filed no brief.
The defendant Mary H. Clark, pro se, filed no brief.
The basic issue is what claims the defendants have to the amount remaining from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale after the satisfaction of obligations secured by a first and second mortgage on the foreclosed property and payment of the costs of foreclosure.
The total funds available for distribution, paid into the hands of the clerk of court, were found to amount to $2,572.54. The master recommended distribution of these funds in accordance with an agreement of the defendant creditors. The record discloses that the creditors had real estate attachments on the foreclosed property formerly belonging to Mary H. Clark and that they had reduced these claims to judgment.
The master's concluding recommendation is as follows: "The Master recommends that the Clerk of Court be directed to distribute the retained funds accordingly, and that upon said distribution having been made, the petitioner be discharged from all liability to any and all of the petitionees insofar as said funds are concerned."
The transcript discloses that the master allowed Mary H. Clark wide latitude in testifying, cross-examining witnesses, and in argument. Much of the evidence introduced by this defendant related either to matters in these involved and protracted proceedings which had already been disposed of in previous actions, or appear not germane to the case before the court.
It is axiomatic that such conflicts as might be found in the relevant testimony and the belief or disbelief of witnesses and parties were for the trier of facts to resolve. Lester v. Lester, 109 N.H. 359; Clover c. Co. v. Smith Co., 96 N.H. 491, 493. The findings and recommendations of the master are supported by the entire record and the Trial Court's decree is sustained. Duane v. Northeast Handling Systems, 107 N.H. 260, 262; Romano v. Company, 95 N.H. 404, 406.
Exceptions overruled.