Lee v. Beagell
1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1695, 19 N.Y.S. 2d 613, 174 Misc. 6 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The deposit of a title deed as security for a loan creates an equitable mortgage, giving the property owner an equity of redemption that cannot be extinguished by an agreement to forfeit the property upon default.
Facts:
- In 1936, the plaintiff purchased a property from defendants Theodore and Florence Beagell and received a warranty deed, which she did not record.
- The plaintiff entered into and remained in possession of the property.
- On March 18, 1939, the plaintiff borrowed fifty dollars from Mr. Beagell and deposited her unrecorded deed with him as security for the loan.
- It was understood between the plaintiff and Mr. Beagell that if the plaintiff failed to repay the loan, the property would belong to Mr. Beagell.
- The plaintiff failed to repay the loan within the specified twenty-week period.
- On September 8, 1939, the Beagells executed and delivered a deed for the same property to defendants George and Hazel Card.
- The Cards took the deed with the knowledge that it was security for the plaintiff's debt and with the understanding that their deed would be destroyed if the plaintiff paid the debt by February 1, 1940.
- The plaintiff failed to pay by the February 1, 1940 deadline, and the Cards recorded their deed on February 2, 1940.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action in a court of first instance to redeem the mortgaged premises.
- Following the initial pleadings, both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
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 the deposit of an unrecorded title deed with a lender as security for a loan create an equitable mortgage, thereby preserving the borrower's right to redeem the property even after the agreed-upon payment deadline has passed?
Opinions:
Majority - Deyo, J.
Yes. The deposit of an unrecorded title deed as security for a loan creates an equitable mortgage. The court of equity will look to the substance and intent of a transaction, not its form. A conveyance that is absolute on its face, if intended merely as security for an obligation, will be construed as a mortgage. The intention of the parties was clearly to create a lien on the property as security for the debt, not to transfer title. This arrangement established an equitable mortgage, which inseparably includes the borrower's equity of redemption. This right to redeem cannot be cut off or impaired by a subsequent agreement to forfeit the property upon default. Because the Cards had knowledge of the security arrangement and the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the property, they were not bona fide purchasers and only succeeded to the rights Beagell had, which was a lien in the nature of an equitable mortgage, not legal title.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the flexibility of the equitable mortgage doctrine, extending it beyond formal written instruments to situations involving the mere deposit of a title deed as security. It reinforces the legal principle that courts will prioritize the true intent of the parties over the form of their transaction, especially to protect borrowers. The case significantly strengthens the equity of redemption, establishing that this fundamental right cannot be contracted away or automatically forfeited upon default, thus protecting debtors from losing their property through informal and potentially predatory lending arrangements.
