Douglas v. Pennamco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 8414SC672,8414SC672 |
| Citation | 331 S.E.2d 298,75 N.C.App. 644 |
| Parties | John DOUGLAS, Jr. v. PENNAMCO, INC.; Old Republic Life Insurance Company; Franklin Savings Bank of New York; J. William Anderson; and Charlotte F. Twyman. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Gary K. Berman, Durham, for plaintiff-appellant.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner by Charles B. Morris, Jr., and Robert S. Shields, Jr., Raleigh, for defendants-appellees Pennamco, Inc., American Sav. Bank (Successor to Franklin Sav. Bank of New York), and Old Republic Life Ins. Co.
Spears, Barnes, Baker, Hoof, Wainio & Holeman by Marshall T. Spears, Jr., Durham, for defendant-appellee J. William Anderson.
Plaintiff's case against defendants Pennamco, Inc., Old Republic Life Insurance Company, and Franklin Savings Bank of New York was dismissed by order of summary judgment. His case against defendant J. William Anderson was dismissed on the pleadings. In our opinion neither judgment was erroneously entered and we affirm them.
The substance of plaintiff's claim is that his home was foreclosed on and his equity therein lost because (a) the defendant insurance company failed to timely pay sums due him under a mortgage payment disability policy and unfairly required him to submit proof of his disability each month; (b) defendant Pennamco, Inc., the mortgage loan administrator, refused to accept late or partial payments; and (c) defendant Franklin Savings Bank of New York, which held the note and deed of trust, defendant Anderson, who was the trustee, and defendant Pennamco, Inc. wrongfully foreclosed on the property.
As to the defendant insurance company the evidence before the trial court showed that: The payments due plaintiff were made in compliance with the policy terms; plaintiff's disability was due to neck and back injuries of unknown duration and such delays in payment as occurred were due to plaintiff's failure to properly document his continued disability, as the policy required. Benefits due under the policy were payable directly to the insured, rather than to the mortgage holder, and though during the many months involved plaintiff received payments from the company amounting to $3,211.80, he applied none of the funds to his mortgage, and was $3,150.36 behind in the payments when foreclosure on the property was begun. From this evidence it is obvious that even if the insurance company had been dilatory in paying the benefits that plaintiff was entitled to, he can justly blame no one but himself for his property being foreclosed on. The law, like the Lord, seldom helps those who refuse to help themselves.
Nor is there any merit in plaintiff's contention that requiring proof of his disability each month benefits were applied for, as the policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiggins v. Planet Home Lending, LLC
...Servs., Inc. v. Cobb, No. 5:07-CV-129-D, 2008 WL 6155804, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2008) (unpublished); Douglas v. Pennamco, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 644, 646, 331 S.E.2d 298, 300 (1985); Phil Mech. Constr. Co. v. Haywood, 72 N.C. App. 318, 320-23, 325 S.E.2d 1, 1-3 (1985). A party may appeal a d......
-
In re Residential Capital, LLC
...had no right to foreclose at the time foreclosure proceedings were commenced.” 82 A.L.R.6th 43 (2013); seeDouglas v. Pennamco, Inc., 75 N.C.App. 644, 331 S.E.2d 298, 300 (1985) (holding that the defendants were “within their rights” to foreclose on property because plaintiff was behind in p......
-
Carmichael v. Irwin Mortg. Corp.
...Mar. 18, 2008) (unpublished); Robinson v. U.S. Cas, Co., 260 N.C. 284, 287, 132 S.E.2d 629, 631 (1963); Douglas v. Pennamco, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 644, 646, 331 S.E.2d 298, 300 (1985); Phil Mech. Const. Co. v. Haywood, 72 N.C. App. 318, 320-23, 325 S.E.2d 1, 1-3 (1985). Furthermore, if plainti......
-
Carmichael v. Irwin Mortg. Corp.
...Thomas M. McInnis & Assocs., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 429-35, 349 S.E.2d 552, 557-60 (1986); Douglas v. Pennamco, Inc., 75 N.C. App. 644, 646, 331 S.E.2d 298, 300 (1985); Phil Mech. Constr. Co. v. Haywood, 72 N.C. App. 318, 320-22, 325 S.E.2d 1, 1-3 (1985). Furthermore, if plaintiffs wan......