Basile v. Erhal Holding Corporation
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
538 N.Y.S.2d 831 (1989)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In return for a loan issued to Teresa Basile (plaintiff) by Erhal Holding Corporation (Erhal) (defendant), Basile mortgaged property to Erhal. Shortly thereafter, Basile filed suit against Erhal, seeking a declaration that the mortgage was null and void based on the unreasonable interest rates on the loan. Prior to trial, Basile and Erhal agreed to a stipulation of settlement, whereby Basile would execute the mortgage to Erhal for $101,303.59, along with a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Erhal was permitted to record the deed if Basile defaulted on required payments under the mortgage. Thereafter, Basile failed to make the mortgage payments. Erhal responded by recording the deed. Erhal filed a motion with the trial court for a declaration that Basile had waived her right of redemption to the property when she signed the deed in lieu of foreclosure. Basile moved for an order compelling Erhal to accept her payment of $101,303.59 as satisfaction of the mortgage and to transfer the deed to the property back to Basile. The trial court granted Erhal’s motion and denied Basile’s request, finding that she had waived the right to redemption of the property. The appellate division reviewed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.