Garner v. Union Trust Co.
185 Md. 386, 45 A.2d 106 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a mortgagor executes a mortgage on a leasehold estate and subsequently acquires the fee simple title, the mortgage lien attaches to the after-acquired fee simple interest. A foreclosure sale on that mortgage can pass the full, merged fee simple title to the purchaser, rendering the title marketable, provided there are no superior intervening liens.
Facts:
- On December 22, 1919, Daniel A. Leonard conveyed land to Linthicum Realty Company, which was subject to an annual ground rent, making it a leasehold estate despite the deed purporting to convey a fee simple.
- The 1919 deed stated that the ground rent would be extinguished by a future deed.
- On the same day, December 22, 1919, Linthicum Realty Company executed a mortgage on the property to West Baltimore Bank.
- On August 15, 1920, Charles J. Bonaparte and others conveyed the fee simple title to Linthicum Realty Company, with the expressed intent that the leasehold estate merge into the fee.
- After August 15, 1920, various judgments were entered against Linthicum Realty Company.
- On February 2, 1945, Union Trust Company of Maryland, which had acquired the property, contracted to sell it to Ralph A. Garner and his wife for $4,200, promising a 'good and merchantable title'.
- The Garners made a $500 down payment but subsequently refused to complete the purchase, challenging the marketability of the title.
Procedural Posture:
- Union Trust Company of Maryland brought a suit for specific performance against Ralph A. Garner and his wife in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (a trial court).
- The chancellor in the trial court entered a decree ordering the Garners to accept the title and pay the balance of the purchase price.
- The Garners, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), with Union Trust Company as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a title acquired through a mortgage foreclosure sale qualify as a good and merchantable fee simple title when the mortgagor held only a leasehold estate at the time the mortgage was executed but acquired the full fee simple estate before the foreclosure?
Opinions:
Majority - Delaplaine, J.
Yes, the title is good and merchantable. A title is marketable if it is free from reasonable doubt that could subject the purchaser to future litigation. Under the doctrine of after-acquired title, when Linthicum Realty Company mortgaged the property while holding a leasehold but later acquired the fee simple, equity dictates that the mortgage's equitable lien attached to the fee simple interest as soon as it was acquired. The subsequent foreclosure sale, governed by a Baltimore City statute, passed all title and interest that both the mortgagor and mortgagee held at the time of the decree. Therefore, the sale conveyed both the legal title to the leasehold and the equitable and legal title to the fee, which merged to create a full fee simple title in the purchaser, Union Trust. The intervening judgments against Linthicum Realty are subordinate to the mortgage's prior equitable lien and do not encumber the title.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the after-acquired title doctrine to mortgage foreclosures and its impact on title marketability. It provides certainty to lenders and foreclosure sale purchasers by confirming that a mortgage lien attaches to a superior estate acquired by the mortgagor after the mortgage's execution. The decision also reinforces the established principle of lien priority, holding that a judgment lien is subordinate to a prior specific equitable lien created by a mortgage. This ruling protects the integrity of foreclosure sales as a method for conveying clean title, thereby promoting confidence in real estate transactions involving such titles.
Unlock the full brief for Garner v. Union Trust Co.