Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                                  VOLUME                                                          PAGE

Cite as: Scotia Mortage Corporation v. Banfield, 1998 NSCA 124

 

SCOTIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION                                       ROSEMARY KAREN-LYN

                                                                                                                BANFIELD and SHAWN

                                                                                                                      PATRICK DELANEY

                                                                        - and -

(Appellant)                                                                                                              (Respondents)

 

C.A.  No.  144260                                Halifax, N.S.                                   CROMWELL, J.A.

                                                                                                                             (orally)

 

 

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                        May 25, 1998

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:             May 25, 1998

 

WRITTEN RELEASE OF ORAL:               May 26, 1998

 

 

 

SUBJECT:           Deficiency Judgment on Foreclosure - Civil Procedure Rule 47.10

 

SUMMARY:        The appellant mortgagee had purchased the property at the Sheriffs sale for an amount equal to the Sheriffs fees and outstanding taxes.  The property was listed for sale and various maintenance expenses incurred.  The property was resold.  On the application for a deficiency judgment the appellants claims with respect to the real estate commission and protective disbursements were disallowed.  The Chambers judges decision in this regard was made prior to the release of this Courts decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Marjen on January 8, 1998. 

 

ISSUE:                 Did the Chambers judge err? 

 

RESULT: Appeal allowed.  The case is governed by the decision of this Court in Marjen.  There was no issue before the Chambers judge or before the Court of Appeal that the amounts claimed with respect to real estate commission or protective disbursements were unreasonable.  The amount of the deficiency judgment was increased accordingly.

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION, QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT FROM THE COVER SHEET.  THE FULL COURT DECISION CONSISTS OF 2 PAGES.

 


 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.