Aames Capital Corporation v. Interstate Bank of Oak Forest
Illinois Appellate Court
734 N.E.2d 493 (2000)
- Written by Ron Leshnower, JD
Facts
Aames Capital Corporation (Aames) (plaintiff), the assignee of a mortgage that was refinanced to pay the balance of prior mortgages, sued in foreclosure after the borrowers defaulted on the loan. Interstate Bank of Oak Forest (Interstate) (defendant) claimed that its judgment lien, which was recorded before Aames became the assignee, took priority over the Aames mortgage. Patrick and Diane Wangler obtained the original mortgage in 1986 from Hinsdale Federal Savings and Loan. Federal Savings and Loan recorded the mortgage that same year and assigned it to Standard Federal Bank (Standard). The Wanglers subsequently signed four junior mortgages with Suburban Bank of Elmhurst (Suburban). The four mortgages were recorded in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. In 1996, Interstate, with knowledge of the outstanding Standard and Suburban mortgages, recorded a judgment against the Wanglers in the amount of $75,891.06. That year, the Wanglers refinanced the mortgages with Pacific Thrift and Loan Company (Pacific) to pay the balance of the debt owed to Standard and Suburban. Pacific paid the prior mortgagees $174,000 and took a mortgage on the Wangler property. Pacific recorded the mortgage and assigned the mortgage to Aames. In 1997, the Wanglers defaulted on the note, and Aames sued in foreclosure. Interstate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Interstate judgment took priority over the Aames mortgage because the judgment was recorded before the Aames mortgage was recorded. Aames claimed that the Aames mortgage took priority, because Aames was subrogated to the rights of Standard and Suburban, the original mortgagees. Interstate countered that subrogation could not exist absent express agreement. The trial court held that Interstate’s judgment lien, which had been recorded earlier in time, took priority over the Aames mortgage. The court granted summary judgment to Interstate. Aames appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Geiger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.