Barclaysamerican/Financial, Inc. v. Boone
This text of 768 P.2d 439 (Barclaysamerican/Financial, Inc. v. Boone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff moved for a summary judgment in this action on a promissory note executed by defendants. Defendants did not deny they were in default, but contended that plaintiff had elected the remedy of non-judicial foreclosure of a trust deed securing the note before filing its complaint. The trial court granted plaintiffs motion. Defendants appeal, and we affirm.
Defendants argue that, once a non-judicial foreclosure of a trust deed is commenced pursuant to ORS 86.735 et seq, there is a statutory prohibition against abandonment in favor of an action on the note because of the doctrine of election of remedies. They reason that ORS 86.770 dictates that result because it is a trade-off that permits the beneficiary to realize on the security by sale without being subject to redemption rights in exchange for giving up the right to a deficiency judgment.
The doctrine of election of remedies is designed to prevent double recoveries. Accordingly, we hold that an election of the remedy of a non-judicial foreclosure occurs only upon sale. ORS 86.770(2).1 See Family Bank of Commerce v. Nelson, 72 Or App 739, 742, 697 P2d 216 (1985); Siuslaw Valley Bank v. Canfield Assoc. Ore. Ltd., 64 Or App 198, 202, 667 P2d 1035 (1983). Because plaintiff abandoned its nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding before sale, no election of remedies occurred.
The remaining assignments of error are without merit.
[350]*350Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
768 P.2d 439, 95 Or. App. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclaysamericanfinancial-inc-v-boone-orctapp-1989.