Thank you’re pretty smart?
Admittedly, im just a simple bloke and all-things-real-estate and perhaps paleo monetary enthusiast. I came across this case nearly a decade ago and in that time I’ve yet to find a single RE attorney, broker, agent or investor that has ever heard of it. I wanted to post it just to pique some interest and hope to hear some opinions as it covers two of my favorite subjects. Its a case from Montgomery, MN from the late 1960’s and once you read the case, i believe, that like myself you’ll no longer wonder why its not discussed in law school, let alone your local boutique RE schools. Jerome Daly, an attorney and defendant in this case, had handled his defense pro se against First National Bank, the plaintiff. I wont spoil it for you. Go ahead and read, search and read again. Looking forward to any response.
What do you think?
#2 All Forums Contributor
- Investor
- Virginia
@Seth Kristian
Not an attorney but fractional reserve lending has been challenged in the past as have mortgages
In most cases unjust enrichment can come into play when it’s disputed but if you did not receive the $, you cannot say you don’t owe it back.
If you want a crazier case read greenleaf case in Maine
That one is actually case law (this one Daly had it overturned).
Free homes in Maine for
Many if they knew about it.
Exactly but the Daly case was able to show that FRL wasnt even taking place as First National’s consideration in the note had no origin. FRL would imply that portions of (9/10ths?) other members’ deposits are used to make loans to other applications and in this case would serve as the bank’s consideration in Daly’s note. Daly proved that this never took place and that all the bank was doing was converting his promissory note (the value) into credit and assigning themselves as beneficiaries to his promissory note and subsequently separating it from the deed. The bank never anted up anything of value, then by separating the note from the deed they forfeited any authority to foreclose.. Only they never inform the “borrower” of any of this. Moreover i believe First National admitted that although no law permits this practice (unjust enrichment) claimed that Daly had tacitly or otherwise consented by way of making payments on his mortgage for so many months. Anyhow, interested in your thoughts..
I have not seen anything on the case being overturned, however have seen the ruling vacated or set aside as Daly went on a bit of a warpath following that decision. See below. I’ll check out that case you sent today! Thanks for sending
Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971)
