Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres

6 Citing cases

  1. Honeyman v. Jacobs

    306 U.S. 539 (1939)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the New York law at issue in Gelfert did not impair the value of the mortgage and therefore did not violate the Contract Clause simply because it resulted in no deficiency judgment where the property sold at foreclosure was worth more than the secured debt

    Home Building Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, supra, at pp. 446, 447, and cases cited, note 18. Richmond Mortgage Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, supra, at p. 129. In this control over the foreclosure sale under its decree, the court could consider and determine the value of the property sold to the mortgagee and what the mortgagee would thus realize upon the mortgage debt if the sale were confirmed. See Monaghan v. May, 242 A.D. 64, 67; 273 N.Y.S. 475; Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres, 247 A.D. 294; 285 N.Y.S. 464. The reasoning of this Court in Richmond Mortgage Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, supra, is applicable and governs our decision.

  2. National City Bank of New York v. Gelfert

    257 App. Div. 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    Home Building Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, supra [ 290 U.S. 398], at pp. 446, 447, and cases cited, note 18. Richmond Mortgage Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, supra [ 300 U.S. 124], at p. 129. In this control over the foreclosure sale under its decree, the court could consider and determine the value of the property sold to the mortgagee and what the mortgagee would thus realize upon the mortgage debt if the sale were confirmed. See Monaghan v. May, 242 App. Div. 64, 67; 273 N.Y.S. 475; Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres, 247 App. Div. 294."

  3. Chase v. Harvey

    253 App. Div. 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

    The question of the power of courts of equity to regulate judgments for deficiency apparently is still open so far as the Court of Appeals is concerned. If that is true, then there is no difficulty in finding authorities holding that in the absence of legislation a court of equity may control the granting or withholding of deficiency judgments. (See Home Building Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398.) The question is quite fully discussed by the Appellate Division in Monaghan v. May ( supra) and Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres ( 247 App. Div. 294). Until the Court of Appeals shall hold to the contrary, we are warranted under the authorities in holding that in the absence of legislation, courts of equity may exercise discretion and control as to the practice and procedure relative to deficiency judgments.

  4. Vogel v. Edwards

    249 App. Div. 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

    The deficiency judgment was not entered until March 15, 1934. If the action be regarded as pending when the Moratorium Act took effect (See Wegman v. Childs, 41 N.Y. 159; Loporto v. Druiss Co., Inc., 241 App. Div. 419; affd., 268 N.Y. 699), then the entry of the deficiency judgment was unauthorized. The order in effect vacates the deficiency judgment and gives the parties an opportunity to make proof as to the value of the property and to determine their equitable rights. ( Monaghan v. May, 242 App. Div. 64; Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres, No. 1, 247 App. Div. 294.) Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

  5. FLYER v. ELMS REALTY CO., INC

    248 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

    The plaintiffs by bringing this proceeding have conferred upon the court jurisdiction to determine the fair amount of a deficiency judgment which may be entered and to exercise its equitable powers in preventing an injustice or an unconscionable result. ( Monaghan v. May, 242 App. Div. 64. See, also, Guaranteed Title Mortgage Co. v. Scheffres, No. 1, 247 App. Div. 294.) Both parties have the right to a review before the Special Term of the report of the official referee and the evidence taken before him in determining the respective rights and liabilities of the parties.

  6. Moke Realty Corp. v. Whitestone Savings & Loan Ass'n

    82 Misc. 2d 396 (N.Y. Misc. 1975)   Cited 26 times
    In Moke Realty Corp. v. Whitestone Savings Loan Ass'n, 82 Misc.2d 396, 370 N.Y.S.2d 377 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1975), aff'd, 51 App. Div. 2d 1005, 380 N.Y.S.2d 761 (2d Dept. 1976), aff'd, 41 N.Y.2d 954, 394 N.Y.S.2d 881, 363 N.E.2d 587 (1977) a mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage after a fire when the mortgage debt was about $50,000.

    Significantly, we do not know that Whitestone would have received permission to enter a deficiency judgment even if it had moved on time. A deficiency judgment can only be entered in an amount equal to the total debt due less the greater of either the sale price of the property or the actual market value of the property. If the mortgaged property was determined to be worth at least the amount of the total debt, the bank could have no deficiency judgment and no right to further recovery on the debt, no matter how small the ostensible price at the foreclosure sale. (Guaranteed Title and Mtge. Co. v Scheffres, 246 App. Div. 532, revd on other grounds 247 App. Div. 294.) Whitestone also claims that section 1371 Real Prop. Acts. of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law impairs the obligations of the fire insurance contracts in violation of section 10 of article I of the United States Constitution. This argument is more makeweight than weighty.