- 12 -
Respondent argues that Citizens did not obtain a deficiency
judgment against petitioner under Utah's one-action foreclosure
law, Utah Code Ann. sec. 78-37-1, and that, as a result of the
rendition of the judgment, the note on which the judgment was
obtained became extinguished as a matter of law. Respondent
further argues that there was no enforceable deficiency judgment
because a technical requirement of Utah State law was not
followed after the foreclosure sale; therefore, the unpaid
deficiency under the judgment was discharged and did not survive
as an enforceable obligation against petitioner. Relying on
Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300 (1983), and Chilingirian v.
Commissioner, 918 F.2d 1251 (6th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.
1986-463, respondent contended that, if there is no deficiency
judgment against petitioner, the amount realized was the amount
of the unpaid mortgage, $528,044.97, ostensibly under the theory
that petitioner was relieved of his obligation to pay an
indebtedness for that amount.7
Citizens' foreclosure proceedings were instituted against
petitioner pursuant to Utah's one-action statute, Utah Code Ann.
sec. 78-37-1 (1992). Under this statute, "there can be but one
action for the recovery of any debt secured by a mortgage." Bank
of Ephraim v. Davis, 581 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Utah 1978) (citing Salt
7
Again, see supra note 5, this argument fails to take into
consideration the accrued interest and other costs that were due
under the judgment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011