Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Coventry Credit Union v. Trafford
Citations: 764 A.2d 179; 2000 R.I. LEXIS 228; 2000 WL 1923886Docket: No. 98-421-A
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; April 19, 2000; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
The defendants, John T. Trafford and Carol A. Trafford, appeal a Superior Court judgment that dismissed their counterclaims against Coventry Credit Union. The Traffords claimed the credit union failed to meet statutory advertising requirements for foreclosures and slandered their title when initiating foreclosure on their mortgaged property. An earlier court order had dismissed their appeal regarding the credit union's trespass and ejectment action but allowed their counterclaims to remain on the show cause calendar. At oral argument, the Traffords’ attorney waived issues related to their slander of title claims, leaving the court to address only the foreclosure advertisement's propriety. The credit union initiated foreclosure proceedings in 1993 due to the Traffords' non-payment on a promissory note, advertising the property for public auction without a street-address number due to conflicting records (90 vs. 88 Reservoir Road). The foreclosure advertisement included necessary details such as the mortgage book and page number, as well as plat and lot numbers. The credit union successfully purchased the property for $130,000 at auction but the Traffords remained in possession. In subsequent legal proceedings, the court ruled in favor of the credit union, finding that the Traffords did not demonstrate that the absence of a street-address number prejudiced them or deterred potential buyers. The court also noted the bid was less than the outstanding debt, and no evidence of the property’s fair-market value was presented, suggesting that potential buyers would likely seek more information from the attorney listed in the advertisement or the town hall. The court found that the foreclosure attorney acted in good faith to protect client interests and treat potential buyers fairly, leading to the denial of the Traffords’ counterclaims. General Laws 1956, 34-27-5 outlines the requirements for foreclosure advertisements, allowing for discretionary inclusion of property descriptions by various means, including metes and bounds or street addresses. Due to unclear records from the Town of Coventry regarding the property's street address, the court deemed it appropriate to omit this detail from the foreclosure advertisements without prejudice. The trial revealed no evidence that the omission negatively impacted the Traffords or influenced potential buyers' willingness to pay more than $130,000 for the property. Other jurisdictions have similarly upheld foreclosures with advertisement defects, provided they did not affect the sale price. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment and denied the Traffords’ appeal.