Geo. M. McDonald & Co. v. Johns
62 Wash. 521, 114 P. 175, 1911 Wash. LEXIS 737 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mortgagee who takes a mortgage solely to secure a pre-existing debt, without providing new consideration or changing their legal position, is not a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore does not gain priority over an earlier unrecorded mortgage on the same property.
Facts:
- Johns and wife (Johns) were indebted to McDonald in the principal sum of $2,210, evidenced by three promissory notes executed prior to May 5, 1908.
- Johns was also indebted to Bechtol in the sum of $662.16, evidenced by a promissory note executed prior to May 4, 1908.
- On May 4, 1908, Johns executed and delivered a mortgage on certain lands to Bechtol to secure this pre-existing indebtedness, without any new or additional consideration or extension of time.
- On May 5, 1908, Johns executed and delivered a mortgage on the same lands to McDonald to secure his pre-existing indebtedness, without any new or additional consideration or extension of time.
- The Bechtol mortgage was executed and delivered first.
- The McDonald mortgage was recorded first.
Procedural Posture:
- The case was heard in a trial court (implied state trial court of first instance).
- The trial judge rendered an opinion concluding that the Bechtol mortgage, having been received first, had prior lien on the land.
- Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of Bechtol.
- McDonald appealed the trial court's judgment.
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 mortgagee who takes a mortgage solely to secure a pre-existing debt, without providing new consideration or altering their legal position, qualify as a 'bona fide purchaser' for value under recording statutes, thereby gaining priority over an earlier, unrecorded mortgage on the same land?
Opinions:
Majority - Dunbar, C. J.
No, a mortgagee who takes a mortgage solely to secure a pre-existing debt, without providing new consideration or changing their legal position, does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore does not gain priority over an earlier, unrecorded mortgage, even if recorded first. The court reasoned that recording statutes protect those who become bona fide purchasers subsequent to a given conveyance or mortgage by requiring public recordation, but they do not apply backward to protect those who precede an unrecorded instrument. For an incumbrancer to be considered a 'bona fide purchaser' for value, they must provide 'valuable consideration,' which requires something of actual value, a surrender of an existing legal right, or the assumption of a new, irrevocable legal obligation. Merely securing a pre-existing debt does not constitute 'valuable consideration' because the creditor parts with no new value, surrenders no right, and places themselves in no worse legal position than before. The court cited Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Jones on Mortgages, People's Sav. Bank v. Bates, and Hicks v. National Surety Co. to support the principle that a transfer as security for an antecedent debt does not make the transferee a bona fide purchaser against existing equities. Therefore, the mortgage executed first, Bechtol's, maintained priority.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of 'valuable consideration' within the bona fide purchaser doctrine, particularly as it applies to real estate mortgages and recording acts. By establishing that merely securing a pre-existing debt is insufficient to confer bona fide purchaser status, the court limits the ability of creditors to gain priority over earlier, unrecorded interests without having actually altered their position in reliance on the property. This precedent reinforces the protection of prior equitable interests, ensuring that recording acts primarily benefit those who provide fresh value. It also emphasizes the equitable roots of mortgage law, balancing the strictures of recording against fundamental fairness in transactions.
