Smith v. Varney
Decision Date | 30 August 1973 |
Citation | 309 A.2d 229 |
Parties | Percy H. SMITH et al. v. Mary M. (Smith) VARNEY et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
J. Armand Gendron, Sanford, for plaintiffs.
John D. Bradford, Biddeford, Thomas J. Reagan, Kennebunk, for defendants.
Before WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
Plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County) in a civil action brought by plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment to determine their rights in three particular parcels of land. The judgment adjudicated that plaintiffs are entirely without rights in said parcels.
We deny the appeal of plaintiffs by adopting the opinion written by Armand A. Dufresne, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court, who acted in this proceeding as the Justice presiding in the Superior Court.
The opinion of Chief Justice Dufresne is hereinafter set forth in full.
'The parties agree that the plaintiffs are successors in title to whatever interest Edgar L. Smith might have in the real estate in dispute between the parties and that as of March 2, 1931 Edgar L. Smith was the sole owner in fee simple of that real estate, to wit, the 36-Acre Lot and the 32-Acre Lot referred to in paragraph (1) of plaintiffs' complaint, and of the Scribner Lot referred to in paragraph (2) of the plaintiffs' complaint. (See consent interlocutory judgment entered in the Superior Court for York County on May 31, 1967.)
'The facts may be summarized as follows: Edgar L. Smith, plaintiffs' predecessor in their chain of title, on March 2, 1931 conveyed the disputed parcels of land to Roger Bragdon by valid mortgage deed as security for the payment of the sum of eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars on demand with interest at the rate of six (6%) per centum per annum. This mortgage deed was recorded in the York County Registry on November 16, 1931. The parties agree that this mortgage has never been foreclosed. On October 7, 1932 Edgar L. Smith executed another valid mortgage deed of the disputed parcels to Casco Mercantile Trust Company (Casco), subject to all incumbrances of record and unpaid taxes, if any. This mortgage deed, recorded in the York Registry on October 9, 1932, contained full covenants of a warranty deed, the covenant against incumbrances, however, excepting the incumbrances of record and unpaid taxes as previously stated in the other part of the deed. This second mortgage was given as security for all obligations then owing to, or thereafter to be incurred by Smith with, the Casco Mercantile Trust Company. The bank on November 24, 1936 started foreclosure proceedings on the Smith mortgage, the first publication of notice of foreclosure being on November 28, 1936. The one-year period of redemption ran out on November 28, 1937. These foreclosure proceedings were initiated by the conservator of the bank, the conservatorship dating from March 18, 1933. In 1947, however, the conservator, deeming the bank's rights subject to the first mortgage of no value to the conservatorship, petitioned the Court having jurisdiction of the conservatorship, for the right to renounce all right, title and interest which he had in the disputed parcels and to abandon the same. This request was duly granted by order dated November 24, 1947.
non-sequitur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hull v. Cenlar FSB (In re Gistis)
...of "the right to redeem the property by payment of the indebtedness for which the real estate was conveyed as security." Smith v. Varney, 309 A.2d 229, 232 (Me. 1973). Until the debt is satisfied, the mortgagee holds title to the property as security for the debt, with the lien following th......
-
Hodgdon v. Campbell
...method for quieting title to real property, especially in the frequently litigated boundary line dispute case. See Smith v. Varney, Me., 309 A.2d 229, 231 (1973) (per curiam); Socec v. Maine Turnpike Authority, 152 Me. 326, 331, 129 A.2d 212, 215 (1957). Noting that a split of authority exi......
-
Portland Sav. Bank v. Landry
...the solemnity of statutory provisions equating the period of redemption equally with the right of redemption. In Smith v. Varney, 309 A.2d 229, 232 (Me.1973), we 'This right of redemption, once extinguished, cannot be revived by any court, nor can the period of redemption be abridged or enl......
-
Kowalski v. Seterus, Inc.
...doctrine in Maine is that a mortgage is regarded as a conditional conveyance vesting the legal title in the mortgagee." Smith v. Varney, 309 A.2d 229, 232 (Me. 1973) (citing First Auburn Tr. Co. v. Buck & Wellman, 16 A.2d 258, 260 (Me. 1940)). Indeed, "[s]uch has been the accepted doctrine ......