Court Opinion

ID: 9935833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:56:49.4982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:31.037043
License: Public Domain

I concur in every aspect of the Court's opinion. I write separately to point out, as noted by the trial court in its December 16, 1982, order, that the mortgagee failed to join in the Defendant's post-judgment motion, though its counsel was physically present at the hearing on the motion. I suggest that, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the mortgagee may not *Page 53 
have been an indispensable party to the proceeding. The mortgage covered Lot 3; and any judgment adverse to the mortgagor — fixing one of the boundaries of Lot 3 — in no way affected the mortgagee's interests. From the outset, it was inherent in the nature of the dispute that, when the law suit was concluded, though adverse to the mortgagor's claim, the mortgagee's interests would remain unaffected.