Federal Deposit Insurance v. Burdell

759 P.2d 282, 92 Or. App. 389, 1988 WL 82237
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 10, 1988
Docket16-86-04163; CA A43052
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 759 P.2d 282 (Federal Deposit Insurance v. Burdell) 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.

Bluebook
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Burdell, 759 P.2d 282, 92 Or. App. 389, 1988 WL 82237 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

BUTTLER, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants Bur-dell (defendants) for the judicial foreclosure of a trust deed and a deficiency judgment. Defendants appeal a final judgment entered after the court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, assigning as errors the court’s entering a personal judgment against them, applying a 1985 amendment to ORS 86.770(3) and awarding costs, disbursements and attorney fees to plaintiff. We affirm.

We view the record in the light most favorable to the defendants, the parties opposing the motion. Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699, 588 P2d 1100 (1978). In June, 1983, defendants bought a 79 percent interest in a house and lot in Lane County from Empire Financial Services, Inc. (Empire), giving Empire a promissory note for $47,425, secured by a trust deed. Empire subsequently assigned the note and its interest as beneficiary under the trust deed to Emerald Empire Banking Company (Banking). On February 3, 1984, plaintiff was appointed Banking’s receiver and acquired the note and all of Empire’s interests in the property, including its interest as beneficiary under the trust deed. Thereafter, defendants defaulted under the note and trust deed. Plaintiff accelerated the balance due and commenced this action.1 At that time, defendants did not reside at the property. After appointing a receiver to collect rents, the court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment against defendants for $47,148.12, plus interest, late charges, costs and attorney fees. The property was sold on execution on March 17,1987, to plaintiff for $36,719.20.

Defendants contend that plaintiff is not entitled to a deficiency judgment, because the trust deed was given to secure the purchase price of the property. They rely on ORS 88.070,2 which forbids a mortgagee from taking a deficiency [392]*392judgment if the mortgagee forecloses a purchase money mortgage, arguing that it applies equally to the beneficiary of a purchase money trust deed. As plaintiff points out, however, defendants’ trust deed was a commercial trust deed at the time of foreclosure, as defined in former ORS 86.770(4), and former ORS 86.770(3) permits it to obtain a deficiency judgment,3 regardless of the anti-deficiency provisions for purchase money mortgages.

Oregon law first permitted trust deeds in 1959.4 Until 1981, however, a beneficiary under a trust deed could not obtain a deficiency judgment, regardless of whether the property was commercial or was sold on judicial foreclosure or by a trustee’s sale. In 1981, the legislature amended ORS 86.770 to allow a deficiency judgment when the beneficiary forecloses a commercial trust deed by a judicial proceeding.

[393]*393By contrast, a mortgagee cannot obtain a deficiency judgment on foreclosure of a purchase money mortgage. See ORS 88.070; ORS 88.075. Defendant argues that ORS 88.070 applies equally to a purchase money trust deed and that, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to a deficiency judgment. We disagree. Although a trust deed is deemed to be a mortgage on real property, ORS 86.715, the provisions of ORS chapter 86 and ORS chapter 88 conflict when, as here, the beneficiary judicially forecloses a purchase money commercial trust deed. Defendants would resolve that conflict by overriding the trust deed deficiency judgment provisions in favor of mortgage law. ORS 86.715, however, precludes that resolution:

“A trust deed is deemed to be a mortgage on real property and is subject to all laws relating to mortgages on real property except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 86.705 to 86.795, in which event the provisions of ORS 86.705 to 86.795 shall control. For the purpose of applying the mortgage laws, the grantor in a trust deed is deemed the mortgagor and the beneficiary is deemed the mortgagee.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Moreover, had it wished to, the legislature could have amended ORS 86.770 to mirror the purchase money distinction under mortgage law. However, it expressly considered and rejected an amendment to ORS 86.770 that would have allowed a deficiency judgment on foreclosure of a nonpurchase money trust deed,5 substituting for it the present exception [394]*394that distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial trust deeds.

In 1985, the legislature sought to clarify the law by amending ORS 86.770(3) to state that it applies to judicial foreclosure of commercial trust deeds “notwithstanding the purchase money mortgage provision of ORS 88.075. ”6 The legislature provided that that amendment applies to all instruments, whenever executed.7 Defendants contend that the legislature cannot move the “foreclosure goalposts retroactively,” because to do so would violate Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article I, section 10, to the United States Constitution by impairing the obligation of contracts. Defendants, however, executed their trust deed in June, 1983. At that time, ORS 86.770 allowed a beneficiary who had judicially foreclosed a trust deed to take a deficiency judgment if the trust deed was a commercial one at the time of foreclosure, note 3, supra. Thus, application of the 1985 amendment to ORS 88.075 to defendants’ trust deed does not alter their obligations and is not unconstitutional.8

[395]*395Affirmed.

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

Related

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Burdell
766 P.2d 1032 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1988)
Sumner v. Enercon Development Co.
759 P.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
759 P.2d 282, 92 Or. App. 389, 1988 WL 82237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-deposit-insurance-v-burdell-orctapp-1988.