- 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