Court Opinion

ID: 9812652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:44:21.058549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:46.807403
License: Public Domain

BaRNHILL, J.,
dissenting: The defendants admit the mortgage, the foreclosure sale, and the foreclosure deed from the trustee to the plaintiff. Nothing else appearing, this would entitle plaintiff to judgment. *567But the defendants plead by way of affirmative defense that the foreclosure sale was not duly and properly advertised as by law required.
Upon whom rests the burden of proof on the issue of fact thus raised by the defendants’ plea of inadequate advertisement? The court below held that the burden rested upon the defendants and so instructed the jury. In my opinion this was in accord with the uniform decisions of this Court and the judgment below should be affirmed.
A purchaser at a foreclosure sale is protected by the presumption of regularity in the execution of the power of sale contained in the deed of trust. Biggs v. Oxendine, 207 N. C., 601, 178 S. E., 216; Berry v. Boomer, 180 N. C., 67, 103 S. E., 914; Cawfield v. Owens, 129 N. C., 286; Jenkins v. Griffin, 175 N. C., 184, 95 S. E., 166; Lumber Co. v. Waggoner, 198 N. C., 221, 151 S. E., 193; Elkes v. Trustee Corporation, 209 N. C., 832, 184 S. E., 826; Phipps v. Wyatt, 199 N. C., 727, 155 S. E., 721; Dillingham v. Gardner, 219 N. C., 227, 13 S. E. (2d), 478; 37 Am. Jur., 146.
If there is any failure to advertise properly, the burden is on the attacking party to show it. Cawfield v. Owens, supra; Jenkins v. Griffin, supra; Berry v. Boomer, supra; Lumber Co. v. Waggoner, supra; Elkes v. Trustee Corporation, supra; 37 Am. Jur., 146.
Biggs v. Oxendine, supra, is substantially on all fours. There, Brog-den, J., speaking for the Court, says: “The law presumes regularity in the execution of the power of sale in a deed of trust duly executed and regular upon its face; and if there is any failure to advertise properly, the burden is on the attacking party to show it.” The charge of the court below was in accord with this rule. Hence, I vote to affirm.
Stacy, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.