Hillside Nat. Bank v. Silverman
| Citation | 173 A. 326 |
| Parties | HILLSIDE NAT. BANK v. SILVERMAN et al. |
| Decision Date | 21 August 1934 |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by. the Hillside National Bank against Sadie Silverman and husband and Lena Alpern to foreclose a mortgage, wherein defendant Lena Alpern, as second mortgagee, sought a deficiency decree. Petition by defendants Silverman in the Court of Chancery to enjoin such suit for a deficiency decree pending a reference to a master to determine the fair value of the property. On bill, petition, and order to show cause.
Order to show cause discharged, and petition dismissed.
No general rule of universal application, requiring an allowance or credit of the fair value of premises sold at foreclosure was established in Federal Title & Mortgage Guaranty Co. v. Lowenstein, 113 N. J. Eq. page 200, 166 A. 538. Each case must be governed by its peculiar facts.
Sidney Finkel, of Newark, for petitioners Silverman.
Samuel H. Nelson, of Newark, for respondent Alpern.
STEIN, Vice Chancellor.
It appears from the petition and proof that Sadie and Benjamin Silverman executed a first mortgage for $8,000 to the Hillside National Bank and a second mortgage of $7,000 to Samuel Dembling, who later assigned the same to Lena Alpern. The Hillside National Bank foreclosed its mortgage, in which proceedings Lena Alpern was named as a defendant. No answer in the foreclosure proceedings was filed by her, and the cause proceeded to a decree for complainant in the sum of $9,179.81. At the sheriff sale the property was struck off to the Hillside National Bank for the sum of $100, after which the respondent, Lena Alpern, instituted suit in the Supreme Court to recover the deficiency arising upon her second mortgage. It is this suit which the Silvermans by their petition now pray the court to enjoin, pending a reference to a master to determine the fair value of the property, which amount so determined they seek to have credited upon their bond, alleging in their petition that the fair value of the mortgaged premises is a sum in excess of the amount due on the first and second mortgages.
Petitioners' claim for equitable relief is predicated upon the ruling in Federal Title & Mortgage Guaranty Co. v. Lowenstein, 113 N. J. Eq. page 200, 166 A. 538, 542, wherein we said that "The mortgagee will not be permitted to retain the estate which will, in effect, become absolute in him upon confirmation of the foreclosure sale, and also recover the debt which is the consideration of that estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Penn Nat. Bank v. Stonebridge Ltd.
...mortgage of Heritage, where Heritage does not purchase the premises subject to the first mortgage. See Hillside Nat'l Bank v. Silverman, 116 N.J.Eq. 463, 173 A. 326 (Ch.1934). For the foregoing reasons the court refused to compel the foreclosure of the common lands subject to the Central Pe......
-
Fid. Union Trust Co. v. Ritz Holding Co.
...Development Company, supra, will likely depend upon the special equity of each case as presented. See, also, Hillside National Bank v. Silverman, 116 N.J.Eq. 463, 465, 173 A. 326. It is next to impossible to provide a definition or formula for such value which can be uniformly applied to al......
-
Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino
...246 N.W. 556, 85 A.L.R. 1477), but they have not limited such judgments when sought by nonselling junior lienors. (Hillside Nat. Bank v. Silverman, 116 N.J.Eq. 463, 173 A. 326.) Fair-value statutes no more precisely worded than sections 580a and 726 have been held inapplicable to the nonsel......
-
Hurdy v. Russo
...judgment was properly granted. Court Investment Co. v. Spatola, 136 N.J.L. 519, 56 A.2d 874 (E. & A. 1947); Hillside National Bank v. Silverman, 116 N.J.Eq. 463, 173 A. 326 (Ch.1934). ...