John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Arnold

Court of Appeals of Oregon

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Arnold

735 P.2d 1270, 85 Or. App. 140

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 22, 1987

Docket84-1586 C; CA A36844

StatusPublished

This text of 735 P.2d 1270 (John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Arnold) 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

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Arnold, 735 P.2d 1270, 85 Or. App. 140 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

In this foreclosure action, defendants appeal from a summary judgment. They contend that, because the property consists of several parcels and because they have substantial equity in it, there was a factual question regarding partition of the property. They argue that the trial court should have partitioned the parcels, setting aside sufficient property to satisfy the mortgage and allowing defendants to keep the rest. We affirm.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and when the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ORCP 47; Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or 659, 665, 607 P2d 177 (1980). Defendants’ contention that the property should have been partitioned is not a fact question. Foreclosure is governed by statutes, see ORS 88.010 et seq, which do not require the court to partition property before sale. Defendants have cited no authority in support of mandatory partition on these facts, and we are aware of none.

ORS 23.460(1) provides, in relevant part:

“After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no more shall be sold. * * * When the sale is of real property, and consisting of several known lots or parcels, they shall be sold separately, or otherwise, as is likely to bring the highest price.”

That procedure sufficiently protects defendants’ equity in the property. Further, if defendants’ equity is substantial, they may redeem the property. ORS 23.530 et seq. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.

Affirmed.

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

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

In this foreclosure action, defendants appeal from a summary judgment. They contend that, because the property consists of several parcels and because they have substantial equity in it, there was a factual question regarding partition of the property. They argue that the trial court should have partitioned the parcels, setting aside sufficient property to satisfy the mortgage and allowing defendants to keep the rest. We affirm.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and when the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ORCP 47; Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or 659, 665, 607 P2d 177 (1980). Defendants’ contention that the property should have been partitioned is not a fact question. Foreclosure is governed by statutes, see ORS 88.010 et seq, which do not require the court to partition property before sale. Defendants have cited no authority in support of mandatory partition on these facts, and we are aware of none.

ORS 23.460(1) provides, in relevant part:

“After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution, no more shall be sold. * * * When the sale is of real property, and consisting of several known lots or parcels, they shall be sold separately, or otherwise, as is likely to bring the highest price.”

That procedure sufficiently protects defendants’ equity in the property. Further, if defendants’ equity is substantial, they may redeem the property. ORS 23.530 et seq. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 P.2d 1270, 85 Or. App. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-v-arnold-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack