Court Opinion

ID: 9845967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:32:01.256702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.100914
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
I am concerned that the majority opinion will destroy the secondary security deed market in this state. Specifically, the majority find that plaintiffs had no cause of action against Randall. I disagree.
To me the pertinent facts are as follows: Silvey Bearden sold the property to Jack Ellis and received a security deed (the "first security deed”). Ellis sold a two-thirds interest in the property to the plaintiffs. The property was then sold to First Towne Associates which gave the plaintiffs and Ellis another security deed (the "second security deed”). Plaintiffs later acquired Ellis’ one-third interest in the second security deed. First Towne sold the property in effect to a land syndication (an investment group) managed by defendant Randall. The purchaser assumed and agreed to pay the first and second security deeds.
Randall, using his own funds which would later be reimbursed by the investment group, acquired (but did not "pay off’) the first security deed by assignment from Silvey Bearden. The first security deed not being paid, *684Randall used it to foreclose on the property.
In my opinion the trial judge correctly held that the payment by Randall to Bearden paid and satisfied the first security deed by operation of law and that the subsequent sale of the property under the power contained in the first security deed was null and void. If that is not the law, then no second security deed is secure.
In my view, Randall, as one of the partners in the investment group, owed a duty to the plaintiffs to pay the first and second security deeds, not to acquire the first security deed and use it to defeat the rights of the holders of the second security deed. The majority rule otherwise and I therefore dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hall joins in this dissent.