Vrooman v. . Turner
69 N.Y. 280, 1877 N.Y. LEXIS 836 (1877)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a mortgagee to enforce a mortgage assumption agreement against a subsequent grantee, the grantee's immediate grantor must have been personally liable for the mortgage debt. A third-party beneficiary cannot sue to enforce a promise unless the promisee had a legal or equitable obligation to the beneficiary that the performance of the promise would satisfy.
Facts:
- A property was encumbered by a mortgage held by a mortgagee.
- The property was conveyed to an intermediate owner (the grantor) who took the property 'subject to' the mortgage but did not personally assume liability for the mortgage debt.
- This grantor subsequently conveyed the property to the appellant (the grantee).
- The deed of conveyance from the grantor to the grantee included a clause stating that the grantee assumed and agreed to pay the outstanding mortgage as part of the purchase consideration.
- The grantee subsequently defaulted on the mortgage payments.
Procedural Posture:
- The mortgagee initiated a foreclosure action in the trial court.
- The mortgagee also sought a deficiency judgment against the appellant, the current owner who had assumed the mortgage.
- The trial court granted the foreclosure and entered a personal judgment against the appellant for any deficiency arising from the sale.
- The appellant appealed the portion of the judgment holding her personally liable for the deficiency to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a grantee, who assumes a mortgage upon conveyance of land, personally liable to the mortgagee for a deficiency if the grantee's immediate grantor was not personally liable for the debt?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
No. A grantee who assumes a mortgage is not personally liable to the mortgagee for a deficiency if their immediate grantor was not personally liable for the debt. For a third party to enforce a promise made for their benefit, there must be an existing legal or equitable obligation owing from the promisee (the grantor) to the third party (the mortgagee). In this case, the promisee-grantor was not personally liable for the mortgage debt, so they owed no obligation to the mortgagee. The assumption clause is merely a promise of indemnity for the grantor; if the grantor has no liability to indemnify, the promise is unenforceable by the mortgagee, who is a stranger to the contract between the grantor and grantee. The court distinguished this from cases like Lawrence v. Fox, where the promisee owed a clear debt to the third party, thereby creating a sufficient connection, or 'privity by substitution,' for the third party to enforce the promise.
Dissenting - Earl, J.
The opinion notes that Judge Earl dissented but does not include the text of the dissent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the third-party beneficiary doctrine established in Lawrence v. Fox. It establishes a critical limitation: a third party can only enforce a contract if there is a pre-existing legal or equitable obligation between the promisee and the third-party beneficiary. This prevents a 'mere volunteer' or incidental beneficiary from suing on a contract. In the context of real estate, Vrooman v. Turner creates the 'unbroken chain of liability' rule, meaning a mortgagee cannot enforce an assumption agreement against a remote grantee unless every intervening owner in the chain had also assumed the mortgage, thus maintaining personal liability.
