(Download) "Skillen v. Harris" by Supreme Court of Montana " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Skillen v. Harris
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 15, 1929
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 52 KB
Description
Quieting Title ? Mortgagee may by Cross-complaint Seek Foreclosure of Mortgage ? Effect of Renewal Affidavit ? Mortgagor not Entitled to Object to Sufficiency of Affidavit ? Decree ? When Incomplete. Quieting Title ? Defendant may by Cross-complaint Ask Foreclosure of Mortgage on Property Involved. 1. Under section 9151, Revised Codes 1921, defendant in an action by a mortgagor to quiet title may by cross-complaint seek foreclosure of the mortgage held by him on the property. Mortgages ? Failure to File Renewal Affidavit, Mortgage Unenforceable as Against Creditors of Mortgagor or Purchasers or Encumbrancers After Expiration of Eight Years from Maturity of Debt. 2. Unless the affidavit of renewal of a recorded real estate mortgage is filed, within sixty days after maturity of the debt as security for which it was given, by the mortgagee, his heirs, representatives or assigns, as required by section 8267, Revised Codes 1921, it becomes unenforceable after the lapse of eight years from the maturity of the debt as against the creditors of the mortgagor or subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers. Same ? Effect of Renewal of Affidavit. 3. As between the mortgagor and mortgagee, a mortgage on real property is good even after the expiration of eight years from the maturity of the debt which is secured thereby, if the debt be kept alive by the filing of a renewal affidavit. Same ? Provision for Renewal Affidavit for Benefit of Mortgagee ? Mortgagor not Entitled to Object to Sufficiency of Affidavit. 4. The protection afforded by section 8267 above, is intended for the benefit of the mortgagee, not the mortgagor, and the latter may not be heard to object to the sufficiency of the renewal affidavit provided for therein where it appears affirmatively that the debt for which the mortgage was given was not barred by the statute of limitations (sec. 9029, Rev. Codes 1921). Quieting Title ? Defendant Seeking Foreclosure of Mortgage ? Decree Leaving Rights and Priorities Undetermined, Incomplete. 5. Where plaintiff in his action to quiet title to mortgaged property by his complaint and replies to various cross-complaints was insisting upon his right to compel all adverse claimants to set forth their claims and sought judgment to quiet his title accordingly, judgment merely foreclosing the mortgage of one of defendants, thus leaving the respective rights and priorities of the plaintiff and of the appearing defendants as well as their positions as redemptioners undetermined, was incomplete, rendering reversal for further proceedings necessary. - Page 74
 "Skillen v. Harris" by Supreme Court of Montana " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}