Bay Side, Inc. v. MFS Service Corp.

Supreme Court of Delaware

Bay Side, Inc. v. MFS Service Corp.

407 A.2d 206, 1979 Del. LEXIS 430

DecidedSeptember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 407 A.2d 206 (Bay Side, Inc. v. MFS Service Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bay Side, Inc. v. MFS Service Corp., 407 A.2d 206, 1979 Del. LEXIS 430 (Del. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in the Superior Court permitting the plaintiff to proceed to foreclosure in connection with a first mortgage lien held by the plaintiff on real property owned by the defendant in Sussex County and subdivided for purposes of resale.

In light of the implied expectancy of principal reductions in this contract (which by its provisions required only interest payments during its term and anticipated fractional sales, release payments by subdivision lot and partial releases from the overall lien by lots sold and release payments made), as further particularly evidenced by the conduct of the parties during the course of the contract, the application of the release payments to principal was proper. Moreover, partial payments made after acceleration of the entire debt, as particularly evidenced by the initiation of foreclosure proceedings, do not cure the default. Clark v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 488 (1971); United States Savings Bank of Newark, New Jersey v. Continental Arms, Inc., Del.Super., 338 A.2d 579 (1975).

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in the Superior Court permitting the plaintiff to proceed to foreclosure in connection with a first mortgage lien held by the plaintiff on real property owned by the defendant in Sussex County and subdivided for purposes of resale.

In light of the implied expectancy of principal reductions in this contract (which by its provisions required only interest payments during its term and anticipated fractional sales, release payments by subdivision lot and partial releases from the overall lien by lots sold and release payments made), as further particularly evidenced by the conduct of the parties during the course of the contract, the application of the release payments to principal was proper. Moreover, partial payments made after acceleration of the entire debt, as particularly evidenced by the initiation of foreclosure proceedings, do not cure the default. Clark v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, Del.Supr., 281 A.2d 488 (1971); United States Savings Bank of Newark, New Jersey v. Continental Arms, Inc., Del.Super., 338 A.2d 579 (1975).

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 A.2d 206, 1979 Del. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-side-inc-v-mfs-service-corp-del-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack