Legal Opinion
Sumner v. Enercon Development Company
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided April 4, 1989No. TC 31735; CA A40765; SC S35541PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.
The issue in this case is whether ORS 88.070 bars a purchase money mortgagee from collecting the amount of a deficiency from a guarantor of the mortgagor’s obligations. The Court of Appeals held that the statute bars recovery. Sumner v. Enercon Development Company, 92 Or App 406, 759 P2d 286 (1988). We disagree, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In 1980, the Sumners sold real property to Enercon Development Company (Enercon) for more than $2 million. Enercon made a down-payment and gave promissory notes for the balance. The Sumners took a purchase money mortgage on the property…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wright v. WimberlyOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Stretch v. MurphyOregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Ladd & Tilton Bank v. MitchellOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Lutz v. Blackwell Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1928
- Eustis v. Park-O-Lator Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. SleutelCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
- Natkin & Co. v. H.D. Fowler Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Pantano v. Maryland Plaza PartnershipNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
- Natkin & Co. v. H.D. Fowler Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Sumner v. Enercon Development Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1989