Union Sav. Bank v. DeMarco
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 606-A,606-A |
| Citation | 105 R.I. 592,254 A.2d 81 |
| Parties | UNION SAVINGS BANK v. Anthony DeMARCO et al. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from superior court judgments denying the defendants' motion to compel answers to interrogatories, and granting the plaintiff bank's motion for summary judgment.
On May 9, 1962, defendants Anthony and Doris DeMarco executed a mortgage of their real estate located in Tiverton, Rhode Island, to plaintiff bank, a Massachusetts corporation, to secure performance of a promissory note of even date therewith. This mortgage was foreclosed December 23, 1967, for breach of conditions, and a sale was held pursuant to the power of sale contained therein, for the sum of $18,450. After plaintiff bank deducted the balance due on its note and the necessary costs of the sale, a surplus of $4,782.61 was left in plaintiff's hands. There being two attachments recorded against defendants at the Tiverton town hall on the date of the foreclosure, plaintiff brought an action of interpleader to determine ownership of the surplus funds, and named as defendants therein the DeMarcos as well as the two attaching creditors. The defendants' answer admitted the allegations in the complaint relative to the foreclosure sale and the balance due on the mortgage, but, in essence, challenged the validity of the contract relative to the promissory note and the mortgage given as security thereon, because plaintiff is a foreign banking corporation and has not complied with G.L.1956, chaps. 1 through 6 of title 7, as amended, the general corporation law, and chaps. 1 through 20 as well as 24 of title 19, as amended, the banking act. In connection with this phase of their answer, defendants filed a counterclaim whereby they claim title to the full proceeds of the foreclosure sale and appropriate incidental relief.
The bank thereupon filed a motion for summary judgment as to defendants' counterclaim. Thereafter defendants' attorney requested further time to gather additional information with which to prepare a sufficient defense, and in connection therewith filed a motion to compel plaintiff to answer interrogatories relative to the number of mortgages plaintiff has held since May 9, 1962, on Rhode Island property, and whether or not any repayment of said loans was made by deposit in the United States mail in Rhode Island; the number of foreclosures commenced by plaintiff on mortgages secured by Rhode Island property since May 1, 1960; and the number of plaintiff's depositors who resided in Rhode Island on May 9, 1962, and December 23, 1967.
The motion to compel, and later the motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim, were heard before a justice of the superior court and it is from adverse decisions thereon that defendants appeal to this court.
At the threshold of defendants' contention is their argument that plaintiff, Union Savings Bank, was illegally doing business in the state of Rhode Island within the contemplation of G.L.1956, chaps. 1 through 6 of title...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crellin Technologies, Inc. v. Equipmentlease Corp.
...In 1969, Rhode Island's highest court made use of the lex loci contractus doctrine in such a context. See Union Sav. Bank v. DeMarco, 105 R.I. 592, 254 A.2d 81, 83 (1969) (holding a loan granted in Massachusetts to be a Massachusetts contract governed by Massachusetts law). Three years late......
-
Alifax Holding Spa v. Alcor Scientific Inc.
...doctrine therefore would require the Court to apply Italian law. See, e.g., DeCesare, 852 A.2d at 484 ; Union Sav. Bank v. DeMarco, 105 R.I. 592, 254 A.2d 81, 83 (1969). An interest-weighing analysis yields the same result. See Gordon v. Clifford Metal Sales Co., 602 A.2d 535, 538 (R.I. 199......