Opinion ID: 2052661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessment of the Deficiency

Text: Relying on 14 M.R.S.A. § 6323, Walton contends that the foreclosure statute limits the bank to recovering only those expenses it incurred before the date of the actual foreclosure sale. Section 6323(1) provides in pertinent part: Any rights of the mortgagee to a deficiency claim against the mortgagors are limited to the amount established as of the date of the public sale. The date of the public sale is the date on which bids are received to establish the sales price, no matter when the sale is completed by delivery of the deed to the highest bidder. (Emphasis added). Based on this section, Walton argues that the bank's payment of a municipal tax debt incurred by Walton prior to the date of public sale, but paid by the bank after the date of public sale, should be disallowed. [4] We disagree. The bank had promised to obtain the discharge of the tax liens as a condition of the sale, and the mortgage granted by Walton to the bank made Walton liable for any amounts so paid by the bank. The fact that the bank paid these amounts subsequent to the public sale does not alter the fact that they are part of the deficiency claim established as of the date of the public sale. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 6323. Walton raises additional contentions about the expenses and amounts allowed by the court in calculating the deficiency judgment, and the court's requirement that Walton post a bond pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 62(c) to pursue this appeal. These contentions have no merit. The entry is: Judgments affirmed. All concurring.