Provident Building & Loan Ass'n v. Pekarek
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By TERRELL, J.
The trial court considered that it would be inequitable to allow foreclosure and sale because there might be a possible deficiency judgment against the defendants. So it provided a scheme whereby, as a condition to the right of sale on foreclosure, the plaintiff should credit upon the judgment the apparent value or so-called intrinsic value which was found by the court. It 'would thus result that instead of defendants being charged with any deficiency judgment the plaintiff itself should suffer this loss. This appears to be one-sided equity. There seems to be no logical…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Suring State Bank v. GieseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Sage v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Adams v. SpillyardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Kenly v. Huntingdon Building Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jarvis v. State Land DepartmentArizona Supreme Court · 1970
- Laub v. Warren Guarantee Title Mortgage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Wayne Building & Loan Co. v. HermanOhio Court of Appeals · 1937