Plaintiff, a first mortgagee, filed an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property that was executed by defendant mortgagors to secure a promissory note. The first mortgagee also named several subsequent mortgagees as parties defendant. The Thirteenth District Court (California) entered a judgment in favor of the mortgagors and the subsequent mortgagees. The first mortgagee appealed.

Nakase Law Firm are  trial attorneys

Overview

The mortgagors gave the first mortgagee a promissory note and a mortgage on their real property. One of the mortgagors then conveyed his interest in the premises to a third party. After the four-year Statute of Limitations expired, both mortgagors reaffirmed their obligation on the note. The mortgagor who did not convey his interest then executed several additional mortgages on the premises in favor of the subsequent mortgagees. The first mortgagor filed his foreclosure action thereafter. The trial court ruled against the first mortgagor and it also gave lien priority to the subsequent mortgagees.In affirming the judgment, the court held that (1) where an action upon a promissory note, secured by a mortgage of the same date upon real property, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, the mortgagee had no remedy upon the mortgage, and that the limitation period was the same as to any other remedies he could pursue, and (2) a mortgagor, after disposing of the mortgaged premises by deed of sale, lost all control over them. His personal liability became separated from the ownership of the land, and he could by no subsequent act create or revive charges on the premises.

Outcome

The judgment that was entered in favor of the subsequent mortgagees and against the first mortgagee was affirmed.