Court Opinion

ID: 9739939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:23:50.831704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.854375
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion except with the implication that an issue of equitable estoppel existed in this litigation at the trial level or exists before us upon appeal.
That First Federal, as stated by the majority at page 1253 of the opinion, may have waived its argument that no relationship existed between it and the McAdams-es, does not establish the existence of any relationship. Some sort of relationship would be essential to the creation of a duty by First Federal to advise McAdamses of the Modification Agreement with Parnells and/or that Parnells were not making payments pursuant to that modification.
With or without regard to the existence of any such relationship, I find no evidence of record which permits an inference that First Federal did or said anything with the intention that the McAdamses rely thereon, nor do I find any evidence that the Mc-Adamses were induced to act or not act as a result of the conduct of First Federal. In short, there is nothing of record to indicate that the McAdamses relied upon any act or statement of First Federal or that if they did so, they had a right to so rely. To the contrary, the evidence discloses that Mc-Adamses knew that the mortgage balance exceeded the balance due on their contract with the Parnells. Accordingly, the Mc-Adamses cannot reasonably claim that reliance upon First Federal led to their damage.
This case is a classic foreclosure situation. The contract purchasers took an interest in the real estate subject to the existing mortgage held by First Federal and the land remained the primary source for the unpaid portion of the debt. First Federal is entitled to foreclose against the real estate.
For this reason I concur in the reversal of the judgment and in the order directing foreclosure against McAdamses’ interest in the real estate.