Plymouth Fertilizer Co. v. Pitt-Greene Production Credit Ass'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Plymouth Fertilizer Co. v. Pitt-Greene Production Credit Ass'n

292 S.E.2d 732, 58 N.C. App. 207, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2750

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 6, 1982

DocketNo. 813SC1004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 S.E.2d 732 (Plymouth Fertilizer Co. v. Pitt-Greene Production Credit Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plymouth Fertilizer Co. v. Pitt-Greene Production Credit Ass'n, 292 S.E.2d 732, 58 N.C. App. 207, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2750 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Since the parties are in substantial agreement regarding the facts of the case, the only question for our consideration is whether the trial court correctly concluded from those facts that petitioner was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Appellants rely heavily on the opinion of our Supreme Court in Waff Brothers v. Bank of North Carolina, 289 N.C. 198, 221 S.E. 2d 273 (1976), a case similar in some respects to that before us. The Waff Brothers holding gave effect to the intent of the parties to the transfer of indebtedness. If Waff Brothers were controlling, therefore, the petitioner here would prevail since assumption of the bank’s lien by Pitt-Greene clearly was intended by the Lassiters, the bank and Pitt-Greene. However, we find that the case at bar is distinguishable from Waff Brothers in one critical respect. In Waff Brothers, the owner of the encumbered property was not personally liable for the payment of the deed of trust. He paid it as a stranger to the indebtedness and was therefore entitled to preservation of the lien in his favor. Where, as here, a property owner is personally liable to creditor #1 and borrows funds from creditor #3 to pay off #1, he cannot defeat the priority of creditor #2, who is senior to #3, by substituting #3 for #1. Regardless of whether the landowner personally handed the borrowed money to #1 in payment of his obligation, the net result is the same: The original debt is discharged and creditor #l’s lien is extinguished.

We hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of petitioner, Plymouth Fertilizer Company.

Affirmed.

Judges VAUGHN and Martin (Robert M.) concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

Since the parties are in substantial agreement regarding the facts of the case, the only question for our consideration is whether the trial court correctly concluded from those facts that petitioner was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Appellants rely heavily on the opinion of our Supreme Court in Waff Brothers v. Bank of North Carolina, 289 N.C. 198, 221 S.E. 2d 273 (1976), a case similar in some respects to that before us. The Waff Brothers holding gave effect to the intent of the parties to the transfer of indebtedness. If Waff Brothers were controlling, therefore, the petitioner here would prevail since assumption of the bank’s lien by Pitt-Greene clearly was intended by the Lassiters, the bank and Pitt-Greene. However, we find that the case at bar is distinguishable from Waff Brothers in one critical respect. In Waff Brothers, the owner of the encumbered property was not personally liable for the payment of the deed of trust. He paid it as a stranger to the indebtedness and was therefore entitled to preservation of the lien in his favor. Where, as here, a property owner is personally liable to creditor #1 and borrows funds from creditor #3 to pay off #1, he cannot defeat the priority of creditor #2, who is senior to #3, by substituting #3 for #1. Regardless of whether the landowner personally handed the borrowed money to #1 in payment of his obligation, the net result is the same: The original debt is discharged and creditor #l’s lien is extinguished.

We hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of petitioner, Plymouth Fertilizer Company.

Affirmed.

Judges VAUGHN and Martin (Robert M.) concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 S.E.2d 732, 58 N.C. App. 207, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plymouth-fertilizer-co-v-pitt-greene-production-credit-assn-ncctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack