Legal Opinion

United Savings Bank Mutual v. Barnette

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 6, 1985No. 129,187; CA A28397PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, P. J.

Defendants Barnettes appeal from a decree of foreclosure, contending that the trial court erred by 1) finding that their sale on contract of certain mortgaged property triggered the due-on-sale clause contained in the mortgage, 2) allowing automatic enforcement of the due-on-sale clause and 3) striking certain equitable defenses. We affirm.

In October, 1970, plaintiff loaned $74,000 to George Suniga for the purpose of constructing a seven-unit apartment building. Suniga signed a promissory note in which he agreed to repay the loan at an interest rate of 8.75 percent. The loan was to be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Tucker v. Lassen Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Occidental Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Venco PartnershipNebraska Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Continental Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. FetterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  4. Bellingham First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. GarrisonWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Mills v. Nashua Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Central National Bank of Greencastle v. ShoupIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Benjamin Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. Carey v. Lincoln Loan Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  4. Auernheimer v. MetzenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. Central National Bank of Greencastle v. ShoupIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API