Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
United States Supreme Court
290 U.S. 398 (1934)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
During the Great Depression in 1933, Minnesota responded to a large number of home foreclosures in the state by passing the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law. The law extended the amount of time for mortgagors to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure contrary to the terms previously agreed upon in the mortgage contract. The Blaisdells (plaintiffs) were a Minneapolis couple who defaulted on their mortgage. Their property was sold in a foreclosure sale to the Home Building & Loan Association (association) (defendant), a mortgage company. Relying on the Minnesota law, the Blaisdells applied in state district court for an extension to their redemption period. The association objected to the law on the grounds that it violated the Contracts Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court granted the Blaisdells an extension under the law but required them to pay $40 per month to the association during the extension period. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law as a valid exercise of state power, and the association appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, C.J.)
Dissent (Sutherland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
