Werner v. Clark

6 Citing cases

  1. Simard v. White

    383 Md. 257 (Md. 2004)   Cited 63 times
    Noting that "the legal title of the purchaser does not vest until the deed to him is delivered"

    See Alexander Gordon, IV, Gordon on Maryland Foreclosures, § 28.02 at 840 (3d ed. 1994). However, another of our early cases was Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627, 71 A. 305 (1908), decided just six years after Aukam. The Werner Court discussed the case of State v. Second Nat. Bank of Hoboken, 84 Md. 325, 35 A. 889 (1896), which pre-dated Aukam, but was not mentioned in Aukam.

  2. White v. Simard

    152 Md. App. 229 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003)   Cited 23 times
    In White, this Court held that the terms of sale found in the advertisement of a foreclosure sale were binding on the parties to the sale, and thus over-came the common law rule that the defaulting purchaser is entitled to any surplus proceeds of a resale.

    It is a well-established principle in Maryland that the defaulting purchaser generally is entitled to the surplus proceeds from a resale due to a foreclosure. See Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627, 633 (1908) ; Aukam v. Zantzinger, 94 Md. 421, 428 (1902); Early v. Dorsett, 45 Md. 462, 466 (1877); Mealey v. Page, 41 Md. 172, 183-84 (1874). Although the cases establishing this rule are roughly a century old, the rule is generally recognized in modern legal literature.

  3. McCann v. McGinnis

    263 A.2d 536 (Md. 1970)   Cited 31 times
    Recognizing the existence of "situations in which it would not be just, wise or expedient to direct a resale at the risk of the original purchaser . . ."

    For further summary of the procedure in the event of default by a purchaser see Miller, supra, §§ 520 to 526, inclusive, with particular reference to § 525 where Miller cites Schaefer, supra. See also by way of further authority Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627, 71 A. 305 (1908), where, after quoting from Dalrymple v. Taneyhill, supra, to the effect that the Act of 1841 authorized resale of the property at the risk of the purchaser but not as his property, Judge Pearce said for the Court at page 633: "We cannot discover that this clear and emphatic language of the Chancellor has ever been questioned or criticised in any decision of this Court, nor do we think it can be said that the principle announced by him has been disapproved in any such decision."

  4. Mizen v. Thomas

    156 Md. 313 (Md. 1929)   Cited 19 times
    In Mizen, supra, the controversy involved a purchaser who was irresponsible and unable to complete the sale, which is plainly not the case here.

    In Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1642, the general principle is thus stated: "A mortgagor cannot defend against a claim for a deficiency on the ground that the premises were at first sold for a sum sufficient to pay the mortgage debt; but the purchaser failing to complete the purchase, an order was granted directing a resale, whereupon there was a deficiency, unless it appear that payment could have been enforced against the first purchaser, that the mortgagor requested the mortgagee to enforce such payment, or that the mortgagee acted fraudulently in the matter." In Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627, the mortgage being in default, the assignee of the mortgage in default foreclosed it under a power contained in the mortgage, and reported a sale of a part of the mortgaged property to Miss Catherine Werner. The sale was finally ratified, but, the purchaser failing to comply with the terms of sale, the assignee filed a petition praying that it be set aside and the property resold at her risk. On that petition, after notice to her, the court did not formally set the sale aside, but did order a resale at her risk.

  5. Union Trust Co. v. Biggs

    153 Md. 50 (Md. 1927)   Cited 48 times
    In Union Trust Co. v. Biggs, 153 Md. 50, 137 A. 509 (1927), it was held that because a judgment creates only a general, non-specific lien, a judgment lien creditor is not a bona fide purchaser for value, and must stand behind a holder of a prior, specific lien.

    The real and not the apparent rights of the judgment debtor in the property measure the rights of the judgment creditor. Davidson v. Myers, 24 Md. 538, 555, 556; 2 Poe, Pl. Pr., secs. 374, 375, 666; Miller's Equity, secs. 453, 454, 463, 466, 498, 510, 512, 513; 1 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., secs. 368, 372; Hampson v. Edelen, 2 H. J., 64, 66, and notes in Brantly edition; Jordan v. Reynolds, 105 Md. 288, 294; Sweet v. Jacocks, 6 Paige Ch. (N.Y.), 355, 362; 2 Freeman,Judgments (5th Ed.), sec. 963, p. 2022; Gregory v. Chapman, 119 Md. 495, 503; Compare Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627. What has been said in the course of this opinion is not in conflict with the recognized right of a judgment creditor, who secures his judgment at any time after a sale of the mortgaged property and before a distribution of the funds, to acquire by attachment a lien on whatever residue of trust funds may remain belonging to the mortgagor after the payment of the mortgage debt and all prior claims.

  6. Four Star Enterprises v. Council of Unit Owners

    132 Md. App. 551 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that entity that was not record owner of foreclosed properties had no standing to challenge foreclosure

    The receiver, they argue, is thus not yet the owner of the property. See Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627, 634-35, 71 A. 305 (1908) (if purchaser buying at foreclosure does not comply with the terms of sale, "the thing, which is the equivalent for the real estate sold, does not exist, and may never exist"). Maryland Rule 15-504(b) states: