Opinion ID: 1190407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: elements of the anti-merger doctrine

Text: A common-law rule, made statutory by 42 O.S. 1981 § 22, [13] teaches that when two estates in property in the same right [14] meet in the same person, a merger takes place. [15] By Oklahoma law  explained in Yoder v. Robinson [16]  it is firmly settled that when the owner of an equitable interest acquires the legal title to the property, the merger of title that follows at law does not always meet with chancery's recognition. Equity's interposition to prevent the effect of merger at law is called the anti-merger doctrine. [17] Yoder teaches that the intention of the person acquiring the two interests controls. [18] If the intention that the estates not merge is divinable, it will be followed in equity; and even when it is not clearly expressed, the intention that the interests not merge will be presumed, if the circumstances indicate the party acquiring both interests would benefit from avoiding a merger. [19] When the mortgagee fails to join an interest-holder as defendant in a mortgage foreclosure and then purchases the mortgaged property at sheriff's sale, equity will, in a proper case, afford relief to keep the mortgage alive vis-a-vis the omitted party's interest. [20] Although legal merger may be avoided in equity and the foreclosed mortgage preserved, an unforeclosed junior encumbrance is not eo ipso extinguished. The mortgagee is afforded an opportunity to foreclose its mortgage once again, this time against the previously omitted lien. [21]