Edith Cooper v. Federal National Mortgage Association

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/30/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n the advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r of D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090983 E d i t h Cooper v. F e d e r a l N a t i o n a l Mortgage A s s o c i a t i o n Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-09-421) Court, BRYAN, J u d g e . E d i t h C o o p e r ( " E d i t h " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of the F e d e r a l N a t i o n a l Mortgage A s s o c i a t i o n Mae") i n an e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n . We On ("Fannie affirm. November 24, 2 0 0 3 , E d i t h ' s father, Mason Dee Cooper 2090983 ("Mason"), a w i d o w e r who owned a h o u s e l o c a t e d on D a r t m o u t h Avenue i n B e s s e m e r ("the h o u s e " ) , m o r t g a g e d t h e h o u s e t o W e l l s F a r g o Home M o r t g a g e , I n c . house when he e x e c u t e d Mason was t h e s o l e t h e mortgage, owner o f t h e a n d he was t h e o n l y p e r s o n named a s a " B o r r o w e r " i n t h e m o r t g a g e . S u b s e q u e n t t o the e x e c u t i o n o f t h e m o r t g a g e , W e l l s F a r g o Bank, N.A. ("the l e n d e r " ) , became t h e s u c c e s s o r b y m e r g e r t o W e l l s F a r g o Home Mortgage, I n c . The m o r t g a g e i s a r e v e r s e m o r t g a g e . R e v e r s e m o r t g a g e s a r e d e s i g n e d t o e n a b l e e l d e r l y homeowners t o c o n v e r t t h e e q u i t y i n t h e i r homes t o m o n t h l y s t r e a m s o f income o r l i n e s o f c r e d i t . See U.S. D e p a r t m e n t Equity (Nov. Conversion o f Housing and Urban Mortgage 1 8 , 1 9 9 4 ) ("HUD Handbook, Handbook") Development, Home D i r . No. 4235.1 REV-1 a t c h . 1-2. " U n l i k e a t r a d i t i o n a l ' f o r w a r d ' r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage, w h i c h i s r e p a i d i n periodic payments, a reverse mortgage i s repaid i n one payment, a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e b o r r o w e r , o r when t h e b o r r o w e r no longer occupies the property as a p r i n c i p a l HUD Handbook a t c h . 1-3B. C o n s e q u e n t l y , mortgage "(a) full residence." Paragraph 9 ofthe provided: ... L e n d e r may r e q u i r e i m m e d i a t e payment i n o f a l l sums s e c u r e d b y t h i s [ m o r t g a g e ] i f : 2 2090983 " ( I ) A B o r r o w e r d i e s and t h e [ h o u s e ] i s n o t t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e o f a t l e a s t one s u r v i v i n g B o r r o w e r ; or " ( i i ) A l l of a Borrower's t i t l e i n the ... i s s o l d o r o t h e r w i s e t r a n s f e r r e d A l t h o u g h the mortgage r e q u i r e d the l e n d e r of d e f a u l t i f his t i t l e transferred, notice of d e f a u l t the p r i n c i p a l On respect i t did April i n the not 10, t o g i v e Mason n o t i c e h o u s e were s o l d o r require i f Mason d i e d residence [house] " the and lender the o f a t l e a s t one to otherwise give h o u s e was anyone no longer s u r v i v i n g borrower. 2008, Mason e x e c u t e d a q u i t c l a i m d e e d t o t h e h o u s e , w h i c h named E d i t h , who i s his sole heir, as t h e g r a n t e e . However, Mason c o n t i n u e d t o l i v e i n t h e u n t i l he d i e d on May living On i n the 6, with house 2008. A f t e r Mason's d e a t h , E d i t h began house. J a n u a r y 9, 2009, t h e l e n d e r h e l d a f o r e c l o s u r e sale t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e i n B i r m i n g h a m . F a n n i e Mae at was the h i g h e s t b i d d e r a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e , and the auctioneer who conducted the sale executed a foreclosure deed conveying the house t o F a n n i e Mae. On A p r i l 2, of 2009, F a n n i e Mae ejectment and seeking S u b s e q u e n t l y , F a n n i e Mae s u e d Mason, s t a t i n g a possession of the claim house. amended i t s c o m p l a i n t t o add E d i t h 3 as 2090983 an additional allegations defendant. Answering, of the complaint and, as Edith denied the a f f i r m a t i v e defenses, a s s e r t e d t h a t F a n n i e Mae was n o t e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e house b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t own of "defective notice," legal t i t l e "defective t o t h e house b e c a u s e sale," and "wrongful foreclosure." Fannie that Mae i t owned moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t legal title to the house by on the virtue ground of the f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d . O p p o s i n g t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , E d i t h a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t F a n n i e Mae was n o t e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e house b e c a u s e , she s a i d , t h e f o r e c l o s u r e was w r o n g f u l b e c a u s e , she s a i d , (1) t h e l e n d e r h a d f a i l e d t o g i v e h e r t h e n o t i c e o f d e f a u l t r e q u i r e d by P a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e mortgage and (2) newspaper s t a t e d the that foreclosure notice the f o r e c l o s u r e published i n the s a l e w o u l d be h e l d at the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse i n Birmingham r a t h e r than the Jefferson asserted County that Courthouse Fannie Mae i n Bessemer. was not In entitled addition, to a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , she s a i d , a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l existed regarding whether Fannie p o s s e s s i o n of the house. 4 Mae was she entitled fact to 2090983 Following judgment in against a hearing, Edith Thereafter, court the this of and Fannie trial Mae dismissed court with the entered a respect claim to summary its against E d i t h moved t o v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , and claim Mason. the trial denied that motion. E d i t h then t i m e l y appealed to court. to favor the Due t o l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , we supreme court court, which t r a n s f e r r e d the transferred the p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code appeal appeal back 1975. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence presented to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded p e r s o n s i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e to draw.' "Nationwide Architects, Prop. & P . C . ] , 792 Cas. Ins. So. 2d [369] 5 this Co.[ v. DPF a t 372 [(Ala. to 2090983 2001)] (citations omitted), quoted L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t Real Estate Co., 844 So. in 2d American 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). E d i t h f i r s t argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f F a n n i e Mae b e c a u s e , she says, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t she l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e the propriety the of the foreclosure sale. First, we note t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d t h a t she l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o that challenge the p r o p r i e t y of the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e ; r a t h e r , the t r i a l held t h a t , b e c a u s e she mortgage individual did not notice was require of the not the a party to the mortgage, lender foreclosure to send sale that r e q u i r e d t h e l e n d e r t o s e n d a b o r r o w e r who mortgage. In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , the was the her the a p a r t y to judgment of the the mortgage trial stated: "4. The C o u r t does n o t f i n d p e r s u a s i v e the arguments of [Edith] that [the l e n d e r ] did not comply w i t h a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of the Mortgage i n c o n d u c i n g the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e . I t appears t o the Court that [ F a n n i e Mae] has p r o d u c e d sufficient e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t a l l p r o p e r n o t i c e s were p r o v i d e d as r e q u i r e d by t h e M o r t g a g e . ... [Edith] was not a p a r t y to the Mortgage, or underlying p r o m i s s o r y note, but o n l y presents h e r s e l f before t h i s c o u r t as an h e i r t o t h e m o r t g a g e e , who i s now deceased. A c c o r d i n g t o the terms of the Mortgage, 6 court the court 2090983 [ E d i t h ] t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t have any r i g h t t o n o t i c e u n d e r t h e M o r t g a g e t h a t t h e s a l e was a b o u t t o t a k e place. (Mortgage at [ P a r a g r a p h s ] 16, 20.) The f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was p r o p e r l y n o t i c e d i n a n e w s p a p e r of g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama. C o n s t a n t i n e v. F i r s t A l a b a m a Bank o f B i r m i n g h a m , 4 65 So. 2d 419, 422 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1984) ( ' I t has b e e n held that p u b l i c a t i o n of a f o r e c l o s u r e n o t i c e i n [the Alabama Messenger] i s v a l i d . ' ) . A l l proper n o t i c e s h a v i n g b e e n g i v e n , t h e s a l e was p r o p e r and conducted i n accordance with the terms of the Mortgage." (Emphasis added.) Second, that, we because mortgage did individual find Edith not notice provides shall was not that, " [ i ] f a i n the a party the copy to part, Paragraph court's holding the mortgage, the to send the sale t o s e n d a b o r r o w e r who that was 20 of her the mortgage a p a r t y to the the mortgage L e n d e r i n v o k e s t h e power o f s a l e , L e n d e r of a notice to Borrower i n the manner i n P a r a g r a p h 16." I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t E d i t h was named as a b o r r o w e r i n t h e m o r t g a g e . merit trial lender of the f o r e c l o s u r e In p e r t i n e n t give provided error require r e q u i r e d the lender mortgage. no i n Edith's first F a n n i e Mae we find no argument. E d i t h a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l a summary j u d g m e n t Accordingly, not i n favor court erred i n entering o f F a n n i e Mae because, she says, f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e l e n d e r gave e i t h e r Mason's 7 2090983 estate or Edith notice of Mason's Paragraph 9 of the mortgage. invoking default F a n n i e Mae as required contends t h a t , i t s power o f s a l e , t h e l e n d e r properly by before delivered a l e t t e r d a t e d O c t o b e r 3, 2008 ("the O c t o b e r 3 l e t t e r " ) , t o t h e house n o t i f y i n g Mason's estate that Mason was in default b e c a u s e he h a d d i e d , w h i c h h a d r e s u l t e d i n t h e house n o t being the Edith principal residence contends t h a t of letter least the October 3 l e t t e r h o u s e . However, F a n n i e Mae regardless at of whether t o t h e house one was borrower. not d e l i v e r e d to the was e n t i t l e d t o a summary the lender because delivered the judgment October (1) t h e d e f a u l t upon w h i c h l e n d e r b a s e d i t s a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h e d e b t and i t s i n v o k i n g the power o f s a l e was house not being B o r r o w e r and the lender Paragraph could principal principal residence to give 9(a)(I) the borrower notice immediate of least does n o t at dies and of such a that the least the one However, P a r a g r a p h 9(d) o f t h e m o r t g a g e 8 of [house] surviving one require default. lender payment o f a l l sums s e c u r e d by i f "[a] Borrower residence at provides o f the mortgage the r e s u l t e d i n the of (2) P a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e m o r t g a g e require mortgage the Mason's d e a t h , w h i c h 3 i s not the the Borrower." does n o t r e q u i r e the 2090983 lender to give the Paragraph 9 ( a ) ( I ) . part that loan becomes due (emphasis notice was borrower of a under n o t i f y t h e ... B o r r o w e r w h e n e v e r t h e and p a y a b l e u n d e r requires P a r a g r a p h 9(a) ( i i ) the lender to give o f a d e f a u l t u n d e r P a r a g r a p h 9(a) o n l y Paragraph i f the default t h e O c t o b e r 3 l e t t e r was n o t d e l i v e r e d t o t h e h o u s e , she does October 3 l e t t e r i t was Although Edith borrower that contend that 9(a) ( i i ) . the contends not under default Paragraph 9(d), which s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t "Lender s h a l l added), notice 1 not w r i t t e n . In p e r t i n e n t part, the states: "Our r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e v e r s e m o r t g a g e loan referenced above i s i n d e f a u l t . U n l e s s t h e d e f a u l t i s c u r e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s n o t i c e , i t w i l l become n e c e s s a r y t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e M o r t g a g e N o t e and p u r s u e t h e r e m e d i e s p r o v i d e d f o r i n the Mortgage "The r e a s o n t h e r e f e r e n c e d r e v e r s e m o r t g a g e i s in default i s due t o t h e d e a t h o f a l l named m o r t g a g o r s on t h e N o t e and M o r t g a g e (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, because the d e f a u l t based i t s a c c e l e r a t i o n o f the mortgage upon w h i c h the lender and i t s i n v o k i n g o f t h e P a r a g r a p h 9 ( a ) ( i i ) o f the mortgage a u t h o r i z e s the l e n d e r t o r e q u i r e i m m e d i a t e payment o f a l l sums s e c u r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e i f " [ a ] l l o f a B o r r o w e r ' s t i t l e i n t h e [house] ... i s s o l d or o t h e r w i s e t r a n s f e r r e d " 1 9 2090983 power o f s a l e was Mason's d e a t h , t h e l e n d e r was n o t o b l i g a t e d to give Mason's Paragraph 9, and, summary j u d g m e n t the estate therefore, regardless October 3 l e t t e r Edith notice of that default F a n n i e Mae of whether was pursuant entitled the lender to to a delivered t o the house. next argues t h a t F a n n i e Mae failed to prove that t h e O c t o b e r 3 l e t t e r was d e l i v e r e d t o t h e h o u s e . However, this a r g u m e n t has no m e r i t b e c a u s e , as e x p l a i n e d was entitled t o a summary j u d g m e n t October 3 l e t t e r was above, F a n n i e regardless d e l i v e r e d t o t h e house of whether because l e n d e r b a s e d i t s a c c e l e r a t i o n o f the mortgage Mae the (1) t h e and i t s i n v o k i n g o f t h e power o f s a l e on Mason's d e a t h , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n t h e house not being b o r r o w e r , and the lender the principal residence (2) P a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e m o r t g a g e to give a summary j u d g m e n t foreclosure Courthouse i n favor sale was i n Birmingham Courthouse i n Bessemer. located at least d i d not one require the borrower n o t i c e of such a d e f a u l t . E d i t h a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l the of court erred i n entering o f F a n n i e Mae held rather at than the the because, she s a y s , Jefferson County Jefferson County She a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e h o u s e i n the Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f J e f f e r s o n 10 County was rather 2090983 than the Birmingham held D i v i s i o n , the foreclosure a t the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse s a l e h a d t o be i n Bessemer than the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse i n Birmingham. t h a t argument, the t r i a l court rather Rejecting s t a t e d i n i t s judgment: "5. [ E d i t h ] h a s a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e i t t o o k p l a c e a t t h e B i r m i n g h a m C o u r t h o u s e when t h e [house] i s l o c a t e d i n B e s s e m e r . P u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h 20 o f t h e M o r t g a g e , i f t h e L e n d e r i n v o k e s t h e power o f s a l e , ' L e n d e r s h a l l p u b l i s h t h e n o t i c e o f s a l e once a week f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e weeks i n a n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e d i n JEFFERSON C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d t h e r e u p o n s h a l l sell t h e [house] t o t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n a t the f r o n t door o f the County Courthouse o f t h i s C o u n t y . ' The l e n d e r i n t h i s case conducted the foreclosure sale on J a n u a r y 9, 2 0 0 9 , a t the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse i n Birmingham, which i s e x a c t l y where t h e l e n d e r a d v e r t i s e d t h e s a l e t o t a k e place. "6. [ E d i t h ] d i d n o t c i t e any c a s e s i n h e r b r i e f on t h i s i s s u e , b u t a t t h e o r a l a r g u m e n t on [ F a n n i e Mae's] m o t i o n [ E d i t h ] i n v o k e d t h o s e c a s e s w h i c h h o l d t h a t t h e B e s s e m e r C u t o f f i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d a separate j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r purposes of determining where t o f i l e a l a w s u i t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . The C o u r t does n o t f i n d t h o s e c a s e s c o n t r o l l i n g o r even persuasive with regard to the issue before the C o u r t , w h i c h does n o t c o n c e r n t h e f i l i n g of a judicial a c t i o n , but i n s t e a d concerns only the e x e r c i s e o f a n o n - j u d i c i a l power o f s a l e g i v e n b y the mortgagor t o t h e mortgagee i n t h e mortgage. I n s t e a d , the C o u r t f i n d s c o n t r o l l i n g the case o f Duncan v. R u d u l p h , [245 A l a . 175, 176,] 16 So. 2d 313, 313 ( A l a . 1944) ( q u o t i n g w i t h a p p r o v a l H a l l v. M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s . Co., [225 A l a . 455, 456-57,] 143 So. 452, 453 ( A l a . 1 9 3 2 ) ) . The Duncan c a s e does concern t h e Bessemer Cutoff and specifically 11 2090983 addresses whether a s h e r i f f ' s s a l e conducted i n Birmingham could validly convey Bessemer real property. The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e Duncan c a s e and the present action i s that the sale complained of here i s not a s h e r i f f ' s s a l e , but i s a n o n - j u d i c i a l foreclosure sale. Regardless, the reasoning of Duncan remains the same; the legislature created the Cutoff to address the h o l d i n g o f C i r c u i t C o u r t i n t h i s d i v i s i o n and d i d not address s h e r i f f ' s s a l e s , f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s , or o t h e r n o n - j u d i c i a l a c t s . I n d e e d , a t l e a s t one o f t h e c a s e s r e l i e d upon by t h e Duncan C o u r t , H a l l v. M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s . Co., [225 A l a . 455, 456-57,] 143 So. 452, 453 ( A l a . 1 9 3 2 ) , d e a l t d i r e c t l y [ w i t h ] t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e C o u r t : When a n o n - j u d i c i a l f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e i s t o be h e l d i n a d i v i d e d c o u n t y ( i . e . a c o u n t y t h a t has two c o u r t h o u s e s ) , at which c o u r t h o u s e s h o u l d t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e be h e l d ? "7. The H a l l c a s e h o l d s t h a t 'where t h e m o r t g a g e stipulates the sale s h a l l be i n f r o n t of the courthouse of the county, a s a l e i n f r o n t of e i t h e r c o u r t h o u s e i n a c o u n t y h a v i n g two c o u r t h o u s e s i s a compliance with such stipulation, the notice d e s i g n a t i n g a t w h i c h c o u r t h o u s e the s a l e w i l l be made.' H a l l v. M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s . Co., [225 A l a . 455, 456-57,] 143 So. 452, 453 ( A l a . 1932) (citing A n n i s t o n P i p e Works v. W i l l i a m s , [106 A l a . 324,] 18 So. 111 ( A l a . 1895)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d h e r e ) . The mortgage i n the p r e s e n t case p r o v i d e d t h a t the s a l e n e e d o n l y be conducted i n t h i s county, meaning J e f f e r s o n County. T h e r e f o r e , because the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e n o t i c e i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e b e i n g conducted a t the Birmingham D i v i s i o n of the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse, the l e n d e r properly n o t i c e d and c o n d u c t e d t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e a t t h e Courthouse i n J e f f e r s o n County, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the M o r t g a g e and t h e above c a s e s . See H a l l , [225 A l a . 455, 456-57,] 143 So. a t 453; Duncan, [245 A l a . a t 176-77,] 16 So. 2d a t 313-14." We agree w i t h the trial court's 12 a n a l y s i s ; t h e r e f o r e , we hold 2090983 t h a t , g i v e n the f a c t s of the p r e s e n t case, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not err invalid in concluding due to Courthouse in that i t s being the foreclosure conducted Birmingham rather at sale was not the Jefferson County than the Jefferson County the trial Courthouse i n Bessemer. Finally, entering she the e v i d e n c e was 3 letter a r g u m e n t has was argues that a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r says, October Edith was court o f F a n n i e Mae i n c o n f l i c t regarding delivered to the house. no m e r i t b e c a u s e , as e x p l a i n e d was d e l i v e r e d to the in because, whether However, the this above, F a n n i e e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t r e g a r d l e s s October 3 l e t t e r erred of whether house because (1) Mae the the l e n d e r b a s e d i t s a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h e m o r t g a g e and i t s i n v o k i n g o f t h e power o f s a l e on Mason's d e a t h , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n the house one not being b o r r o w e r , and the lender the residence of at least (2) P a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e m o r t g a g e d i d n o t to give B e c a u s e we principal require the borrower n o t i c e of such a d e f a u l t . f i n d no m e r i t a f f i r m the judgment of the i n any trial of E d i t h ' s arguments, court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e 13 Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . result, without writing. we

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.