Case ID: nc_230/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb CuRiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MILLARD GUNTER v. B. G. GUNTER and ELMER GUNTER and Wife, VINA GUNTER.
    (Filed 28 September, 1949.)
    Mortgages § 40—
    An alleged parol agreement entered into by the parties just prior to foreclosure sale, which amounts to nothing more than an oral option to the mortgagor to repurchase, is insufficient to charge the purchaser at the sale as trustee or to impress a trust upon his title.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Moore, J., April Term, 1949, MadisoN.
    Civil action to impress a trust upon defendant’s title to the real property described in the complaint.
    From judgment of nonsuit plaintiff appealed.
    Calvin• R. Edney and James E. Rector for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      Carl R. Stuart for defendant afjpellees.
    
   Peb CuRiam.

A mortgage on the locus, executed by plaintiff, was foreclosed. Defendant became the purchaser at the sale. Plaintiff now .seeks to have defendant declared trustee for his use and benefit by reason of a parol agreement entered into by them just prior to the sale. A careful examination of the testimony discloses that the contract of the parties, if made, constitutes nothing more than an oral option to repurchase. It is insufficient to charge defendant as trustee or to impress a trust upon his title. Hence the judgment entered must be

Affirmed.