CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ANTI-DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT STATUTES IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS - IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT

Authors

Elbridge D. Phelps, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff instituted a proceeding on a judgment bond which was secured by a real estate mortgage, both of which had been executed by defendants, caused judgment to be entered on the bond, and procured the issuance of a writ of execution under which the mortgaged premises were sold. Thereafter, under the provisions of the state Mortgage Deficiency Judgment Act, defendants procured a satisfaction of the judgment in toto. After entry of such satisfaction, plaintiff filed a petition upon which the court granted a rule on defendants to show cause why the satisfaction should not be stricken. From an order dismissing its petition, plaintiff appeals. Held, order reversed, rule reinstated and made absolute, and that as applied to mortgages executed prior to its enactment, the Mortgage Deficiency Judgment Act is unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of contract. Beaver County Building & Loan Assn. v. Winowich, 323 Pa. 483, 187 A. 481 (1936).

Recommended Citation

Elbridge D. Phelps, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ANTI-DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT STATUTES IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS - IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT, 35 Mich. L. Rev. 830 (1937).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss5/12