Honeyman v. Clark
| Decision Date | 18 October 1938 |
| Citation | 17 N.E.2d 131,278 N.Y. 467 |
| Parties | HONEYMAN v. CLARK et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property by Robert B. Honeyman against Alma Claire Clark and others. From an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, denying a motion by plaintiff for a deficiency judgment against the defendant, plaintiff appeals on alleged constitutional grounds.
Affirmed. Appeal from Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County.
Robert B. Honeyman, of New York City, in pro. per.
No appearance for respondents.
The plaintiff has brought an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property in Queens county, executed and delivered by the defendants David B. Jacobs and Mary V. Jacobs on the 4th day of February, 1928, to secure the payment of their bond in the sum of $15,000. The plaintiff asks for a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises and for judgment for any deficiency which may arise upon such sale. Judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered in April, 1938, and the mortgaged premises were sold in May, 1938, to the plaintiff for the sum of $7,500. The referee reported that after payment of taxes and expenses ‘there is due to the plaintiff a deficiency of Nine thousand five hundred ninety and 20/100 ($9,590.00) Dollars, with interest from the date of this report.’ Under the statute as it existed at the time the bond and mortgage were executed, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a judgment for that deficiency.
Sections 1083-a and 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, enacted thereafter, purport to limit the right of the plaintiff to enter a deficiency judgment. The plaintiff, alleging ‘that such legislative acts constitute an unreasonable interference of the plaintiff's contract rights with the defendants, David B. Jacobs and Mary V. Jacobs, and are wholly unconstitutional and in violation of article 1, section 10, of the constitution of the United States [U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 10],’ has applied to the court for an order confirming the referee's report of sale and directing the clerk to enter in his favor judgment against the said defendants in the sum of $9,500. The plaintiff appeals to this court from an order of Special Term which provides that the application for a deficiency judgment ‘is in all respects denied on the grounds that the value of the property is equal to the debt of the plaintiff, and pursuant to section 1083-a of the Civil Practice Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Powers
...the facts so warrant. The retrospective operation of almost identical legislation has only recently been sustained. Honeyman v. Clark and Jacobs, 278 N.Y. 467, 17 N.E.2d 131, affirmed in Honeyman v. Jacobs, 306 U.S. 539, 59 S.Ct. 702, 83 L.Ed. 972. The protection of defendants against too l......
-
Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Brown
...the facts so warrant. The retrospective operation of almost identical legislation has only recently been sustained. Honeyman v. Jacobs, 278 N.Y. 467, 17 N.E.2d 131, affirmed in 306 U.S. 539, 59 S.Ct. 702, 83 L.Ed. 972. The protection of defendants against too large a claim for deficiency is......
-
Bayside-Flushing Gardens v. Beuermann, 7771.
...The constitutionality of the New York statute has been sustained. Honeyman v. Hanan, 275 N.Y. 382, 9 N.E.2d 970; Honeyman v. Clark and Jacobs et al., 278 N.Y. 467, 17 N.E.2d 131, affirmed by Supreme Court of the United States, 306 U.S. 539, 59 S.Ct. 702, 83 L.Ed. 972. A similar statute of t......
-
Honeyman v. Jacobs
...violated the contract clause of the Constitution was overruled and this ruling was sus- tained by the Court of Appeals. Honeyman v. Clark, 278 N.Y. 467, 17 N.E.2d 131 The court followed its earlier decisions, citing Honeyman v. Hanan, 275 N.Y. 382, 9 N.E.2d 970; Klinke v. Samuels, 264 N.Y. ......