The mortgage consolidation and extension agreement in issue was correctly held to be null and void on the ground that, by its terms, it requires the intended mortgagor, defendant, to own the subject premises, which defendant never did. The record shows that the parties intended that defendant would purchase the premises from the owner, a nonparty who was then in default on his mortgages with plaintiff, and that plaintiff would consolidate and extend the original mortgages...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
