Baskurt v. Beal
Alaska Supreme Court
101 P.3d 1041 (2004)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Marion and Mortimer Moore each owned one of two adjacent parcels of land. The Moores divorced and each sold their respective parcel to Charles McAlpine, who deeded both parcels to Annette Beal (plaintiff). To finance the purchases, McAlpine signed two promissory notes—Note A, payable to Mortimer, and Note B, payable to Marion. The notes were secured by one single trust. The trust provided that default under one note constituted default under the other note as well. The trust did, however, give the trustee the option to sell only one parcel, individually. Beal paid off Note A, but fell behind in her payments on Note B. Sarah Baskurt, the Moores’ daughter and trustee of a trust that Marion established, brought foreclosure proceedings. At the foreclosure auction, Baskurt and her partners (defendants) were prepared to pay as much as $251,000 for the parcels. However, Baskurt submitted an opening bid of $26,781.81—$1.00 more than Beal owed on the note—and it turned out to be the only bid. Beal brought suit, seeking to have the foreclosure sale set aside. The trial court found that the fair market price for the parcels was $225,000 and that the sale of either one of the parcels, individually, would have been sufficient to cover Beal’s debt. The trial court set aside the foreclosure sale. Baskurt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
