DeWees v. Stoup

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Tolin

    827 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    213 S.W.3d at 175. In DeWees v. Stoup, the new deed of trust was recorded on the same date as the old deed of trust was released, 494 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) —so, too, in Construction Equipment Management, Inc. v. DunhillDevelopment Corporation , 892 S.W.2d 639, 644 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). Further, in each of these cases, the new deed of trust was recorded before or on the same date as the old deed of trust was released—never after the old deed of trust was released.

  2. Construction Equip. v. Dunhill Devel

    892 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

    However, Citizens argues the priority of its September 1987 deed of trust carried over to the deed of trust recorded on December 9, 1988, because the first deed of trust was released contemporaneously with the recording of the second deed of trust. Citizens relies on DeWees v. Stoup, 494 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Mo.App. 1973), to support its argument. In DeWees, the court found a second "permanent" loan retained the priority of the first loan because the second loan was in essence substituted for the first.

  3. Riggs v. Kellner

    716 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Putney Realty Co. v. Frank, 52 S.W.2d 1025, 1026 (Mo.App. 1932); Shiner v. Polk, supra, 374 S.W.2d at 552-3. If not, the intention is presumed to be in accordance with the best interest of the parties as shown by the surrounding circumstances, id.; the interest of the holder of the first deed of trust is governing. DeWees v. Stoup, 494 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Mo.App. 1973). Missouri law reveals a merger will not be declared where it would work against the interest of the first mortgagee to give the holder of an intervening encumbrances a greater lien or priority than he previously had. Saline County v. Thorp. 337 Mo. 1140, 88 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Mo. 1935); Scott v. Hill, supra, 50 S.W.2d at 113; Hayden v. Brock, supra, 57 S.W. at 723.

  4. Golden Delta Enterprises, L.L.C. v. US Bank

    213 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Remanding for further factfinding on such matters going toward intent as the amount of the outstanding balance of the released loan and whether the proceeds of the refinancing loan were used to pay down another line of credit—but doing so only after determining that the release of the prior deed and recordation of the new deed occurred sufficiently contemporaneously

    Similarly, the courts in DeWees v. Stoup and Construction Equipment Mgmt. Inc. v. Dunhill Dev. Corp. held that "permanent" loans replacing construction loans retained senior priority over intervening liens. DeWees, 494 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App. K.C.1973); Dunhill, 892 S.W.2d 639 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). The Dunhill court noted, "the recording of a new mortgage contemporaneously with the release of an old mortgage securing the same indebtedness creates a presumption of intent to preserve the priority of the first mortgage."