MEMORANDUM OF JUDICIAL OPINION:
https://casetext.com/search?q=plaintiff%20is%20entitled%20to%20Equitable
%20redemption&p=1&tab=ps&jxs=&sort=relevance&type=case
The Plaintiff is awarded EQUITABLE REDEMPTION-
1. In re Jordan
13 B.R. 401 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1981)
Judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the defendant, decreeing that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem
the property under principles of equitable redemption. This
Memorandum of Decision contains findings of fact and
conclusions of law as required by Bankruptcy Rule 752(a).
Plaintiffs' counsel should prepare, serve, and lodge an
appropriate judgment.
2. Mechanics' Bank v. New-York and New Haven R.R. Co.
13 N.Y. 599 (N.Y. 1856) Cited 20 times
to the company nowhere expressly authorizes a sale of the
premises without notice. The sale was authorized to be made
either publicly or privately, but no authority is given to make the
same without notice, and this I think could not be done. In my
opinion, the plaintiffs have a right to redeem the property upon
equitable principles. Nothing exists to bar this right. They were
entitled to notice from the company of the contract of sale, before
its consummation, in order that they might, if they chose to do
so, pay up the amount due on the mortgage, and keep the
property. If Hamilton took the
3. Aurora Loan Services, Inc. v. Craddieth
442 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 103 times
out its $107,000-odd dollars to buy the property, the fault was not
theirs but their lawyer's. Now it is true that Illinois like other
states confers on mortgagors an "equity of redemption," which
enables the mortgagor to redeem his property after he has
defaulted. There is both a statutory and an equitable right of
redemption. Colon v. Option One Mortgage Corp., supra, 319
F.3d at 919-20 and n. 7 (Illinois law). The deadline for statutory
redemption is the later of three months after the foreclosure
judgment or seven months after the mortgagor submits to the
jurisdiction of the court. 735
4. React Financial v. Long
366 Ill. App. 3d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) Cited 8 times
in which the mortgagor, or one claiming through him, reacquires
or buys back the title which may have passed under the
mortgage, or frees the mortgaged premises of the lien created by
the mortgage. 27A Illinois Law & Practice (ILP) Mortgages § 361
(2003). Illinois law provides for both statutory and equitable
rights of redemption. Colon v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 319
F.3d 912 (7th Cir.2003). The duration of the statutory right of
redemption for residential real estate is seven months from
service of the foreclosure complaint or three months from the
entry of a judgment of foreclosure
5. Noble v. Noble
2013 OK Civ. App. 41 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)
¶8 Defendant nevertheless argues by analogy that, in an action
for the forced sale of property in satisfaction of a mortgage,
redemption is a favored, substantive legal right which lasts until
confirmation of the sale. Sooner Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v.
Oklahoma Cent. Credit Union, 1989 OK 170, ¶11, 790 P.2d 526,
529. Furthermore, says Defendant, Oklahoma law also
recognizes the equitable right of redemption. Sooner Federal
Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 1989 OK 170, ¶12, 790 P.2d at 529. The
Defendant points out that, so, too, in tax sales is the right of
redemption assured. 68 O.S. Supp. 2009 §3113
6. Noble v. Noble
303 P.3d 907 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)
Defendant nevertheless argues by analogy that, in an action for
the forced sale of property in satisfaction of a mortgage,
redemption is a favored, substantive legal right which lasts until
confirmation of the sale. Sooner Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v.
Oklahoma Cent. Credit Union, 1989 OK 170, ¶ 11, 790 P.2d 526,
529. Furthermore, says Defendant, Oklahoma law also
recognizes the equitable right of redemption. Sooner Federal
Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 1989 OK 170, ¶ 12, 790 P.2d at 529. The
Defendant points out that, so, too, in tax sales is the right of
redemption assured. 68 O.S. Supp.2009 § 3113
7. Schnitzer v. Rinderer
294 N.J. Super. 241 (N.J. Super. 1996) Cited 2 times
by both the tax collector and the Rinderers prior to the discharge
of the tax certificate. If those procedures complied with the
redemption statutes, the certificate was properly discharged in
1995 by the tax collector and defendants would be entitled to
summary judgment. If not, plaintiff is entitled to proper
redemption. Resolution of that issue, however, requires facts that
are not sufficiently fleshed out in the present record. Finally,
because the issues are peculiarly embedded in the tax statutes,
we conclude the expertise and jurisdiction of the Tax Court is
required. See N.J.S.A
8. In re Jordan
13 B.R. 401 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1981)
Boyles' sale and the Krivitsky sale served to wipe out the effect
of both of these sales and thereby revested Hopkins with the
legal title that he had acquired from the SLN execution sale.
Bateman v. Kellogg, supra, 59 Cal.App. at pages 480-481, 211
P. 46. JORDAN IS ENTITLED TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY
UNDER PRINCIPLES OF EQUITABLE REDEMPTION It is well
settled that redemption after expiration of the 12-month period
may be allowed where equitable considerations justify such
relief. Webb v. Vercoe, 201 Cal. 754, 258 P. 1099 (1927); Smith
v. Kessler, 43 Cal.App.3d 26, 31, 117 Cal.Rptr. 470 (1974);
9. Trumbull Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Rickard
2019 Ohio 2502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
due [via the foreclosure decree] is * * * a determination by the
court which serves as the basis for redemption on the one hand
or distribution of sale proceeds on the other hand." Citizens Loan
& Sav. Co. v. Stone, 1 Ohio App.2d 551, 555, 206 N.E.2d 17, 21
(2nd Dist.1965). {¶34} The right of redemption is both equitable
and statutory. Hausman v. Dayton, 73 Ohio St.3d 671, 676,
1995-Ohio-277, 653 N.E.2d 1190 (1995). {¶35} The equitable
right of redemption "continues until the land is sold * * *." Frische
v. Kramer's Lessee, 16 Ohio 125, 138, 47 Am. Dec. 368 (1847).
"The mortgagor remains the
10. React Financial v. Long
366 Ill. App. 3d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) Cited 8 times
disposition of issues of law or of easily proved issues of fact
(Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill.2d
112, 189 Ill.Dec. 31, 619 N.E.2d 732 (1993)). On appeal, we
review such dismissals de novo. Hodge, 156 Ill.2d 112, 189
Ill.Dec. 31, 619 N.E.2d 732. The Right to Redeem--Statutory and
Equitable Redemption The term "redemption" generally refers to
a process in which the mortgagor, or one claiming through him,
reacquires or buys back the title which may have passed under
the mortgage, or frees the mortgaged premises of the lien
created by the mortgage. 27A Illinois Law &
11. Colson Colson Construc. Co. v. Maultsby
405 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 1 times
at foreclosure and that the property may have a value in excess
of the balance of the purchase price does not alter this result.
The purpose of the anti-deficiency statute is to prevent
oppression of a purchase money debtor by a purchase money
creditor. The purchase money debtor has both an equitable and
statutory right to redeem. Riddick v. Davis, 220 N.C. 120, 16
S.E.2d 662 (1941); N.C.G.S. 45-21.20 (1984). The law favors the
party the policy was designed to protect. For the foregoing
reasons we hold that the trial court erred in awarding attorneys'
fees to defendants. As we have held
12. Gerry v. Northrup
102 Cal.App.2d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951) Cited 3 times
and that without any determination of the invalidity of the liens of
the mortgage and second trust deed, the respondent would not
have redeemed. This for the reason that such liens plus that of
the lien of the first trust deed exceeded the value of the
property. Hence, she contends, equitable redemption should
now be accorded to her. While we see no merit whatever to the
argument, we think we should discuss briefly the basic fallacy
which underlies it. When the defendant Jessie Northrup obtained
her money judgment against John and Susan Wight several
procedures looking toward its satisfaction
13. Ulander v. Allen
544 P.2d 1001 (Colo. App. 1976) Cited 11 times
that equity through redemption, such as is afforded in mortgage
forclosure proceedings. Consolidated Finance Corp. v. Thorp,
168 Colo. 144, 450 P.2d 320; Gore Trading Co. v. Alice, 35 Colo.
App. 97, 529 P.2d 324. The issue presented here is whether
redemption is the only equitable remedy permissible where a
purchaser in default has acquired an equitable interest in the
property. A foreclosure action could have been utilized here. See
Fairview Mining Corp. v. American Mines Smelting Co., 86 Colo.
77, 287 P. 800. And, if the sellers had elected to pursue their
remedies under foreclosure, § 38
14. Tidd v. Stauffer
159 Ind. App. 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) Cited 11 times
(Our emphasis.) The court went on to hold that the land sale
contract created a mortgage relationship between the vendor
and the vendee, with the vendor being, in effect, an equitable
mortgagee. The court also quoted other jurisdictions and held
that the equitable mortgagor has an equity of redemption and the
equitable mortgagee has the correlative right of foreclosure. The
court discussed the similarity between the conditional land
contract and a mortgage as follows: "A conditional land contract
in effect creates a vendor's lien in the property to secure the
unpaid balance
15. Braunstein v. Trottier
54 Or. App. 687 (Or. Ct. App. 1982) Cited 16 times
the property will be reconveyed, but that if he defaults absolute
title shall vest in the grantee without further action by either
party, the transaction is treated as a secured transaction, and the
deed is treated as a mortgage. The grantee must enforce his
rights by way of judicial foreclosure, as a result of which the
grantor is entitled to the statutory redemption rights. Libel v.
Pierce, 147 Or. 132, 31 P.2d 1106 (1934); but see Herrmann v.
Churchill, 235 Or. 327, 385 P.2d 190 (1963). If that kind of
forfeiture may not be enforced by the secured party according to
the express terms of the
16. Gliottone v. Ventetuolo, 87-1493 (1991)
C.A. No. 87-1493 (R.I. Super. Jul. 25, 1991)
of approximately one year and seven months was a sufficient
length of time to sever Joseph Ventetuolo's co-tenancy
relationship with the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff need not
demonstrate ouster or disseisin of defendants in addition to
satisfying the statutory requirements of adverse possession. For
the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that plaintiff has
satisfied each element under R.I.G.L. § 34-16-7 with clear and
convincing evidence. Therefore, this Court extinguishes the
defendants' equitable right of redemption. Counsel shall prepare
the appropriate judgment for entry
17. Union Trust Co. v. Reed
213 Mass. 199 (Mass. 1912) Cited 16 times
It remains to consider the form and extent of relief. The agreed
facts show that the plaintiff was ignorant of the tax sale, which
occurred in February, 1907, until December 31, 1909, and
brought the present bill within less than four months
thereafter. These circumstances make it equitable that it should
be given a right to redeem. But the plaintiff's right to redeem is
only for the purpose of protecting its interest acquired by
attachment, and does not extend beyond this for the profit of
itself or others. Its right of redemption is no more than
coextensive with its claim. Inasmuch as
18. Loan Co. v. Stone
1 Ohio App. 2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965) Cited 23 times
chancery law, although it also provides for poundage and
interest on the purchasers' deposit — items of cost not always
previously allowed. See Fiedeldey v. Diserens (1875), 26 Ohio
St. 312. However, in the present case, the person holding the
equity of redemption redeemed the property prior to sale and in
the exercise of his well-established equitable rights under
general principles of mortgage law. It would also appear that the
purchasers were aware of the redemption. We see no basis in
equity for an award of interest to the purchasers on their deposit
from the date of deposit to the date
19. Cochran v. Grebe
578 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) Cited 8 times
for sale of land in order to prevent consequent unfairness to the
vendee. This rule can be justified on the ground that a contract
for deed is a form of security device similar in purpose to a
mortgage or deed of trust. Just as redemption is permitted to a
mortgagee, so also a parallel right of "equitable redemption"
should be extended to a vendee under a contract to
purchase. Annot., "Specific Performance of Land Contract
Notwithstanding Failure of Vendee to Make Required Payments
on Time," 55 A.L.R.3d 1, l.c. 16; H L Land Company v. Warner,
258 So.2d 293 (Fla. App. 1972). But just as the
20. Coraci v. Noack
212 N.W.2d 164 (Wis. 1973) Cited 8 times
to that land contract by foreclosing whatever equitable interest
the purchaser has in that property. Since strict foreclosure is an
equitable action, and since a court in equity seeks to avoid a
forfeiture, a period of redemption is, within the discretion of the
court, granted to the purchaser of the land contract. Similarly,
because of the equitable nature of a strict foreclosure action, the
court may, in appropriate circumstances, grant a right of
redemption to the assignee of the purchaser. Such may be the
case in spite of the presence of a nonassignment provision in the
land contract. The
21. Moser v. Thorp Sales Corp.
256 N.W.2d 900 (Iowa 1977) Cited 38 times
outstanding equitable rights of redemption. Equitable L. Assur.
Soc. v. Asmus, supra, 230 Iowa at 1065, 300 N.W. at 319-320;
Nelson v. First Nat. Bank, supra, 199 Iowa at 805, 202 N.W. at
847-848. There is no reason to deny the quiet title remedy to
equitable owners of real estate, subject to their obligation to
exercise such a right of redemption within a reasonable time,
with the decree molded accordingly. See § 649.1, The Code;
Bates v. Bates, 237 Iowa 1408, 1413, 24 N.W.2d 460, 463
(1946) ("The statutes providing for actions to quiet title are
remedial in nature and should be liberally
22. Fugate v. Rice
815 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 4 times
for sale of land in order to prevent consequent unfairness to the
vendee. This rule can be justified on the ground that a contract
for deed is a form of security device similar in purpose to a
mortgage or deed of trust. Just as redemption is permitted to a
mortgagee, so also a parallel right of `equitable redemption'
should be extended to a vendee under a contract to
purchase. Annot., `Specific Performance of Land Contract
Notwithstanding Failure of Vendee to Make Required Payments
on Time,' 55 A.L.R.3d 1, l.c. 16; H L Land Company v. Warner,
258 So.2d 293 (Fla.App. 1972).
