First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ledermeier

Ohio Court of Appeals

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ledermeier

42 N.E.2d 1006, 36 Ohio Law. Abs. 143, 1942 Ohio App. LEXIS 914

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1942

DocketNo. 5974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 N.E.2d 1006 (First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ledermeier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ledermeier, 42 N.E.2d 1006, 36 Ohio Law. Abs. 143, 1942 Ohio App. LEXIS 914 (Ohio Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

This is an appeal on law and fact presenting the issue of priority between the mortgagee and a mechanic’s lien-holder.

The plaintiff, the mortgagee, bases its claim to priority upon a construction mortgage.

The defendant mechanic’s lienholder, The A. M. Lewin Lumber Company, bases its claim to a lien upon furnishing material, and the taking of the necessary proceedings under the statute to obtain the lien.

The controversy relates to the disbursement of the money secured by the mortgage. The mechanic’s lienholder contends that the mortgagee failed to comply with the provisions of §8321-1 GC, essential to the preservation of its priority. Specifically, it is contended that as the owner was also the builder, no money could be paid him for disbursement to laborers except on his written order or certification, and as no such writing was obtained this invalidated the priority which the mortgagee would otherwise be entitled to.

In Knollman Lumber Co. v. Hillenbrand, 64 Oh Ap, 549, We analyzed §8321-1 GC and stated our opinion as to its meaning. We need not repeat here what was said there. More recently, we considered the application of that section to a different set of facts in First Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Robbins. We believe those two cases dispose of all the contentions in this case.

The real estate has been sold.

Without giving the 'mortgagee credit for any payments for labor, the disbursements to materialmen and contractors and prior liens exceed the amount of the proceeds of sale. No matter how we would decide the issue as to the money paid to the owner, to be 'used by him to pay laborers, we would still find the construction mortgage was a prior lien for more than the balance of the proceeds of sale. We do so find. The issue, therefore, is moot as to money paid the owner for labor.

A decree may be prepared according to this opinion.

MATHEWS, PJ, HAMILTON & ROSS, JJ, concur. -• -----

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

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

This is an appeal on law and fact presenting the issue of priority between the mortgagee and a mechanic’s lien-holder.

The plaintiff, the mortgagee, bases its claim to priority upon a construction mortgage.

The defendant mechanic’s lienholder, The A. M. Lewin Lumber Company, bases its claim to a lien upon furnishing material, and the taking of the necessary proceedings under the statute to obtain the lien.

The controversy relates to the disbursement of the money secured by the mortgage. The mechanic’s lienholder contends that the mortgagee failed to comply with the provisions of §8321-1 GC, essential to the preservation of its priority. Specifically, it is contended that as the owner was also the builder, no money could be paid him for disbursement to laborers except on his written order or certification, and as no such writing was obtained this invalidated the priority which the mortgagee would otherwise be entitled to.

In Knollman Lumber Co. v. Hillenbrand, 64 Oh Ap, 549, We analyzed §8321-1 GC and stated our opinion as to its meaning. We need not repeat here what was said there. More recently, we considered the application of that section to a different set of facts in First Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Robbins. We believe those two cases dispose of all the contentions in this case.

The real estate has been sold.

Without giving the 'mortgagee credit for any payments for labor, the disbursements to materialmen and contractors and prior liens exceed the amount of the proceeds of sale. No matter how we would decide the issue as to the money paid to the owner, to be 'used by him to pay laborers, we would still find the construction mortgage was a prior lien for more than the balance of the proceeds of sale. We do so find. The issue, therefore, is moot as to money paid the owner for labor.

A decree may be prepared according to this opinion.

MATHEWS, PJ, HAMILTON & ROSS, JJ, concur. -• -----

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E.2d 1006, 36 Ohio Law. Abs. 143, 1942 Ohio App. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-federal-savings-loan-assn-v-ledermeier-ohioctapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack