Hart v. Monte Vista Bldg. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 05 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 11703. |
| Citation | 82 Colo. 204,257 P. 1079 |
| Parties | HART et al. v. MONTE VISTA BLDG. ASS'N. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Rio Grande County; J. C. Wiley, Judge.
Suit by the Monte Vista Building Association against Isaac Hart and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
General findings of the trial court on conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on review.
George M. Corlett, of Monte Vista, for plaintiffs in error.
Jesse Stephenson and Herbert W. Martin, both of Monte Vista, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error had a decree of foreclosure against plaintiffs in error, with a provision for execution against the defendants Hart, makers of the mortgage note, for any deficiency.
Marietta A. Hart was the owner of the mortgaged premises; she borrowed $800 of the building association; and she and Isaac Hart, her husband, gave a note and mortgage to secure its payment. They afterwards borrowed on note and second mortgage $400 of one En Earl, since deceased, whose heirs are the other plaintiffs in error.
Being pressed for payment, Mrs. Hart, on payment to her by one Hecker of $125, gave a quitclaim deed of the mortgaged property to the association. She claims that, in consideration of this deed, the association agreed that its note was satisfied and assumed the $400 note, so that she was discharged of both debts. The court's findings were general for plaintiff on conflicting evidence, so these claims cannot be maintained here.
She further claims that upon the delivery of the quitclaim deed the mortgage interest merged in the fee and was extinct. The doctrine of merger, however, is not a rule of property; the question of merger depends upon intent (Shreve v. Harvey, 74 N.J.Eq. 336, 339, 70 A. 671; Chase v. Van Meter, 140 Ind. 321, 39 N.E. 455; Collinsville National Bank v. Esau, 74 Okl. 45, 47, 176 P. 514); and the court, by its general finding, has found that there was not an intent to merge. Neither can this claim therefore be maintained here.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v.
...context, a common owner's intent as to whether mortgaged land and mortgaged debt are merged is relevant. See, e.g., Hart v. Monte Vista Bldg. Ass'n, 82 Colo. 204 (1927). This is because "circumstances can arise in which[automatic] merger would produce unintended consequences." Id. at 1091-9......
-
U.S. v. State of Colo.
..."The doctrine of merger ... is not a rule of property; the question of merger depends upon intent...." Hart v. Monte Vista Bldg. Ass'n, 82 Colo. 204, 257 P. 1079, 1079 (1927). In law a merger always takes place when a greater estate and less[er] [estate] coincide and meet in one and the sam......
-
Salazar v. Terry
...the occurrence of merger. Salazar cites our decisions in Goldblatt v. Cannon, 95 Colo. 419, 37 P.2d 524 (1934); Hart v. Monte Vista Bldg. Ass'n, 82 Colo. 204, 257 P. 1079 (1927); Weston v. Livezey, 45 Colo. 142, 100 P. 404 (1909), as support for his position. These cases all apply to mortga......