Court Opinion

ID: 9938192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:02:44.954904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:48.213493
License: Public Domain

I agree with the result reached in this case. Clearly there was no accord and satisfaction. I also agree that the Rays cannot complain about the application to the two notes of the proceeds from the sale of the property in question. However, in reaching that conclusion I do not rely on the language in the mortgages. When the Rays executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the mortgages were effectively extinguished, although the notes secured by the mortgages were not discharged. The proceeds from the sale of the mortgaged property were then applied against the indebtedness represented by the notes. The agreement between the parties did not specify how the proceeds were to be apportioned. If a debtor does not direct which of several debts in the hands of a creditor a payment is to be applied to, the creditor may apply the payment as it chooses. Sumlin v. Hagan Storm Fence Co.,409 So.2d 818 (Ala. 1982).