Voelkel v. Harrison
Louisiana Court of Appeal
572 So. 2d 724 (1990)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
In 1983, Martin A. Harrison, III (defendant) gave Lucille Scovotto Voelkel (plaintiff) a mortgage on certain property (the mortgaged property). The recorded mortgage agreement named the mortgagor as “Martin A. Harrison, III.” However, the title records named the owner of the mortgaged property as “Martin Harrison, III.” In December 1985, State Farm Acceptance Corporation of Louisiana, Inc. (State Farm) acquired an interest in the mortgaged property. Subsequently, Harrison defaulted on his mortgage agreement with Voelkel. Voelkel sued Harrison to foreclose on her mortgage. State Farm intervened to claim a priority interest in the mortgaged property. State Farm relied on an October 1985 case, which held that a mortgagee’s failure to match the mortgagor’s name in the recorded document to the owner’s name in the title records rendered the recorded document ineffective against subsequent mortgagees. Voelkel argued that the legislature implemented a remedial statute in 1987, which specifically provided that a mortgage interest will not lose priority for including, or failing to include, a mortgagor’s middle name or initial in the recorded document. The trial court refused to apply the 1987 statute retroactively and reasoned that doing so would interfere with State Farm’s vested right in its priority interest. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that State Farm’s interest had priority over Voelkel’s mortgage. Voelkel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.