The theory [of merger] is that when a mortgagee's interest and the fee title coincide and meet in the same person, the lesser estate, the mortgage, merges into the greater, the fee, and is extinguished. Courts also state that whether merger has occurred depends on the intent of the parties, especially the one in whom the interests unite. If merger is against that party's best interest, it will not be deemed intended by the parties.Resolution Trust Corp. v. Indep. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 1994) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994).

The theory [of merger] is that when a mortgagee's interest and the fee title coincide and meet in the same person, the lesser estate, the mortgage, merges into the greater, the fee, and is extinguished.Resolution Trust Corp. v. Independent Mortgage Servs., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn.App. 1994) (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994).

Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Indep. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Minn.App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994).

Merger of interests in land can occur when a mortgage interest and a fee interest are acquired by the same person with no intervening interest: the lesser mortgage interest is then extinguished as merged into the fee interest. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Indep. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994).

And under certain circumstances, we might be persuaded to disregard the transposed digits as "a mere clerical mistake of the scrivener" of which Rose Overman should have been aware. Cf. Fowler v. Woodward, 26 Minn. 347, 348, 4 N.W. 231, 232 (1880) (concluding that mortgage's reference to "quarterly" interest payments was accidentally used in place of "annually" when only interest payments mortgagors owed were annual interest payments on a particular note); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Indep. Mortgage Servs., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 481 (Minn.App. 1994) (permitting note and mortgage to be treated as single instrument or transaction when simultaneous execution demonstrates parties' intent to treat them as such), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994).

Cases in other jurisdictions, however, have ruled that "an owner cannot owe himself a debt." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Indep. Mortgage Services, Inc., 519 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994); Fed. Land Bank of Omaha v. Boese, 373 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1985). Moreover, other courts have recognized that where a debtor pays the creditor the debt is extinguished because no one can be simultaneously debtor and creditor of the same debt.