Simard v. White

CATHELL, Judge. This case arises out of conflicting claims to the excess funds 1 resulting from a resale after a purchaser defaulted in a prior foreclosure proceeding in respect to property located in ²⁶² Prince George’s County. 2 David J. Simard, petitioner, the original and subsequent purchaser, challenges a Court of Special Appeals’ decision allowing the contractual waiver of petitioner’s alleged common-law entitlement to the excess of proceeds from a property’s resale. Elizabeth A. White, Nancy P. Regelin and Patrick M. Martyn (hereinafter, the “Trustees”), together with Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a successor to Home Savings- of America, F.S.B. (hereinafter, the “Lender”), the holder of a note secured by a Deed of Trust from Theodore B. McCann are the respondents. 3 The intermediate appellate court’s decision overturned the decision of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, which had sustained petitioner’s exceptions to an Auditor’s Report following the resale of the property.

See White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229 , 831 A.2d 517 (2003). Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and this Court granted it on December 18, 2003. Simard v. White, 378 Md. 617 , 837 A.2d 928 (2003). The sole question petitioner initially presented for our review asks: “Whether parties to a power of sale foreclosure may ‘contract out’ the common law rule that the defaulting purchaser is entitled to any surplus proceeds of resale by placing such a provision in the advertisement of sale?”[ 4 ] We hold that the supposed right of a defaulting purchaser to receive the excess proceeds from the resale of the property ²⁶³ is not the common-law of this State.

For that reason, we need not resolve petitioner’s original question. After the initial briefing and oral argument, the Court scheduled additional oral argument and requested the parties to brief and address two additional questions proposed by the Court. They were: 1. Should the [alleged 5 ] common-law rule that a defaulting purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale is entitled to any surplus proceeds resulting from a resale caused by the default, be modified or abolished? 2.

If that rule is modified or abolished, and a surplus results at a second sale after a default, should the court otherwise have authority to reimburse the defaulting purchaser from the surplus for the cost of the improvements made to the property by him/her prior to the resale? We need not answer the first question as we hold that there does not exist in Maryland a common-law rule entitling a defaulting purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale to any of the excess funds resulting from a higher bid at the resale caused by the default. To the second question presented by the Court we respond that, so long as there remains a deficiency in respect to the original mortgage debt, a defaulting purchaser at the first sale is not entitled to claim any of the excess funds resulting from a higher bid at the resale. Further, we hold that if the sum bid at the second sale is both higher than the bid at the first sale and is more than sufficient to pay off the mortgage debt, the defaulting purchaser at the first sale, absent fraud or extraordinary circumstances, still is not entitled to receive any such excess funds in respect to any costs or expenses incurred in making improvements and/or repairs to the property prior to the resale.

The total bid price that results in excess funds ²⁶⁴ reflects the true value of the land and normally such funds are due the original mortgagor, or those claiming through him, junior lien holders, etc. I. Facts 6 Beginning on April 1, 1999, the Trustees advertised the sale of an improved fee-simple parcel of real property located at 5511 Fisher Road, Temple Hills, Maryland (hereinafter, “the property”). The sale was to take place on April 20, 1999, at the steps of the Prince George’s County Courthouse. The advertisement specifically enumerated the “TERMS OF SALE.” Among these terms were the following provisions: “The purchaser shall comply with the terms of sale within ten (10) days after ratification thereof by the Circuit Court from Prince George’s County, Maryland, unless said period is extended by the Substitute Trustees, their successors or assigns for good cause shown; TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE. If the purchaser shall fail to comply with the terms of the sale or fails to go to settlement, in addition to any other available legal or equitable remedies, the Substitute Trustees may declare the entire deposit forfeited and resell the premises at the risk and cost of the defaulting purchaser.

In such event, the defaulting purchaser shall be liable for the payment of any deficiency in the purchase price, all costs and expenses of sale, reasonable attorney’s fees, all other charges due and incidental and consequential damages. The purchaser shall not be entitled to any surplus proceeds or profits resulting from any resale of the property. If the Substitute Trustees cannot convey insurable title, purchaser’s sole remedy at law or in equity shall be the return of the deposit.” [Emphasis added.] 7 ²⁶⁵ Petitioner made the high bid, $53,000, at the first sale on April 20th and signed a Memorandum of Purchase at Public Auction averring to that fact. The memorandum stated, “I, the undersigned purchaser hereby acknowledge that I ... have this day purchased the property described in the attached advertisement, subject to the conditions stated therein ____” The sale was ratified by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on September 24, 1999.

As a result of the foreclosure sale being insufficient to pay the secured debt and accrued interest fully, a deficiency of $51,424.34 then remained on the mortgage account. Petitioner, however, did not complete settlement within ten days after the ratification of the sale by the circuit court, as required under the “terms of sale,” and thus defaulted on his purchase of the property. As a result, on December 10, 1999, the circuit court issued an Order Directing Resale Of Mortgaged Property At Risk And Cost Of Defaulting Purchaser, pursuant to Md. Rule 14-305(g). The order provided, “No cause to the contrary having been shown ... it is hereby ordered by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland ... that the subject property shall be resold at the risk and cost of the defaulting purchaser, David Simard, and furthermore that the purchaser’s deposit is hereby forfeited.” The trustees then placed a second advertisement of sale in a local newspaper of general circulation.

The relevant terms of this second advertisement of sale were identical to those of the April 1, 1999, advertisement of sale. The resale occurred on February 22, 2000 and petitioner again was the high bidder, with a bid of $101,141.55, and again signed a Memorandum of Purchase at Public Auction, a memorandum with the identical terms as the previous memorandum. As there were no exceptions to the resale, the circuit court ratified the second sale on April 7, 2000. After the bid at the resale there still remained a deficiency as to the mortgage debt.

Petitioner again failed to complete settlement of the resale of the property in a timely fashion, but filed a Petition To Substitute Purchasers for the resale in the circuit court on May 26, 2000. Petitioner asserted that he had assigned his ²⁶⁶ rights as the purchaser in the resale to Jose W. Barias and Daysi Y. Alvarenga (hereinafter, the “Substitute Purchasers”) and the Substitute Purchasers had agreed to go to settlement. Petitioner, however, retained primary responsibility for “all liabilities in connection with the performance of [the Substitute Purchasers’] contract to purchase the property and for compliance with the terms of the sale as set forth in the Trustee’s Notice of Sale” (alteration added). This petition was granted by the circuit court on May 26, 2000. ■ Pursuant to Md. Rule 14-305(f), 8 after ratifying the resale, the circuit court referred the matter to an auditor.' The auditor compiled a report on August 2, 2000, which stated that the property’s resale produced the excess sum of $46,831.29 above the price bid at the first sale (albeit it was still insufficient to pay the mortgage lien debt in full).

The auditor, pursuant to Md. Rule 2-543(e), then authorized the payment of this complete resale price to the deed of trust debt and thus to the original grantor’s (mortgagor’s) account. 9 The auditor included notes with the auditor’s report explaining why the auditor did not authorize the payment of the surplus to petitioner. The notes stated: “Generally, in the event of a resale which has been ordered by the Court to be ‘at the risk and cost of the defaulting purchaser’ the property is resold as the defaulting purchaser’s ‘risk and cost’ which means that he has the risk of and is responsible for any decrease in sales price and any additional costs. Likewise, he has the benefit of and is entitled to any excess in the sales price at the resale, less the additional costs. The excess in the sales price resulting from the resale is credited to the defaulting purchaser and not the mortgage account. ²⁶⁷ “However, in the instant case, the trustees’ advertisement of sale specifically states that in the event of a resale as a result of default by the purchaser ‘the purchaser shall not be entitled to any surplus proceeds or profits resulting from any resale of the property.’ In foreclosure sales, the advertisement of sale becomes the contract between the trustees and the foreclosure purchaser, and the ‘terms of sale’ specified in said advertisement becomes binding between them.

As a result of this agreement, the surplus proceeds resulting from the resale have been applied to the mortgage debt as opposed to being awarded to the defaulting purchaser. “The defaulting purchaser has filed herein a claim against the surplus proceeds and has stated that the reason for the higher price obtained by the trustees at the resale was due to substantial improvements made to the property by him between the time of the first and second sales. However, this claim has not been substantiated and as a result has not been considered by the Auditor in this report. Had this been proven, reimbursement of the cost of said improvements would have been allowed.” As a result of this auditor’s report, petitioner filed exceptions in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and, after conducting a hearing on petitioner’s exceptions to the auditor’s report, the circuit court found, inter alia, that: “the provision in the advertisement indicating that in the case of a default that the successful purchaser at the first sale (defaulting purchaser) shall not be entitled to any surplus proceeds or profits resulting from a re-sale of property is contrary to the Maryland law governing said circumstance and that no valid consideration existed for the forfeiture of the right of surplus to which the defaulting purchaser would otherwise be entitled. The Court further finds that the language contained in the advertisement cannot operate to alter the principles of law governing entitlement to surplus and that to so allow would be a contract of adhesion and can have a chilling effect on securing foreclosure bids.” ²⁶⁸ That court then remanded the case to the auditor “to re-state his account in accordance with the findings” of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

On remand, in an April 2, 2001, report, the auditor credited petitioner with the excess proceeds of the resale, but did award respondents $11,951.75 in attorney’s fees in relation to the litigation of petitioner’s exceptions. Respondents filed exceptions to the auditor’s report, “made solely to preserve for appeal [respondents’] claim previously presented to the Court that the terms of the advertisement of sale should have been enforced regarding the surplus,” and made a motion “to pay [the] surplus [ie., excess proceeds] into [the] registry of the court,” as opposed to directly crediting petitioner with the excess funds (alterations added). On July 9, 2001, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County issued an order granting respondents’ motion, thus ratifying the auditor’s report and authorizing the clerk of the court to accept and hold the surplus proceeds pending further order from the court. On July 24, 2001, the trial court issued an order directing respondents to pay the excess proceeds from the resale, minus the attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court, into the registry of the trial court pending further orders from the court.

Respondents subsequently paid $29,686.37 into the registry on July 27, 2001. Both parties filed cross-appeals with the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that petitioner was not entitled to the excess proceeds of the resale because the specific terms in the advertisement of sale contractually waived petitioner’s alleged common-law entitlement to these excess proceeds. The intermediate appellate court did not address the merits of whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees to respondents, because it held that petitioner failed to preserve that issue. 10 ²⁶⁹ II.

Historical Perspective on Mortgages and Deeds of Trust Because we are undertaking consideration of a relatively recent alleged common-law provision, it is helpful to address the common-law of mortgages generally in order to add proper perspective to the priority issues the Court is resolving. The right to private property predated for centuries the Magna Carta. 11 The right of land owners to pledge their ²⁷⁰ parcels as security for debt also arose relatively early in the history of the recorded law of property. There are early references in England to the practice that concerned statutes and the common-law regulation of lending practices. In Vol.

Ill of Statutes of the Realm, at p. 933, the text refers to a statute passed in the year 1542 to 1543 that addresses an already existing practice in respect to mortgages. That statute, identified as 34 & 35 Hen. VIII ch. 26, provided: “That no mortgages of land, tenement, or hereditament, made on and after the saide feaste of Sainte John Baptist, whiche was in the saide XXXiith yere of the reigne of our .saide, Soveraigne Lorde, or that hereafter shall be had or made, with in any of the saide Shyres or places, shall be hereafter allowed or admitted, otherwyse thenne after the course of the common Lawes and Statutes of the Realme of Englande: any usage or custome heretofore had to the contrarye thereof not withstanding.” See also Richard M. Venable, The Law of Real Property and Leasehold Estates in Maryland 177 (1892). By the early 18th Century, and apparently much earlier, a mortgagee was considered the owner of the pledged property subject to a condition.

A debtor who timely paid the debt in full, acquired the right to eject the creditor (mortgagee) if necessary, and re-take complete title to the property. However, if the debt at any time became in default, or the mortgage ²⁷¹ was otherwise in default, the creditor (mortgagee) was considered the owner of all of the property free of the condition. It did not make any difference whether ninety percent or one percent of the debt was unpaid and in default. Such creditor/debtor arrangements came to be known as “strict mortgages” for obvious reasons.

It appears that in early times redemption rights of the mortgagors were also much more limited than present. Mortgagees, in these early times, apparently utilized ejectment actions as well, even though they were considered to be the owners of all the pledged property, because they had to be able to free it of the condition that might cause a defeasance of their title. In other words, under the lien instruments of the time, even though the mortgagee acquired complete ownership upon default, the mortgage documents (however called) facially created a possibility by way of the condition of a defeasance, reversion or reverter back to the mortgagor. In order to clear title of that condition, mortgagees also used actions at law in ejectment, ie., ejecting the rights potentially existing by way of the condition.

In explaining the origin of the concept of a mortgage, Venable stated: “These pledges took the form of estates on condition. The debtor, or borrower, conveyed lands to the creditor on condition that if the money was repaid in a designated time the debtor might reenter or the conveyance was to be void, or the lands were to be reconveyed. This conveyance (or mortgage) transferred to the grantee (or mortgagee) an estate on condition; that is, an estate to be defeated on the performance of a condition subsequent (the payment of the money). Courts of law, of course, recognized this form of conditional estates, as they did other forms; but they held the parties strictly to the very terms and stipulations of the mortgage.

If the mortgagor paid the mortgage debt in the time agreed, he thereby acquired a right of entry on the mortgaged premises, and could eject the mortgagee (4 Kent Com. 140). If, however, the debt was not paid in the time ²⁷² stipulated, he forfeited all interest in the property, and the mortgagee became the absolute owner of the estate. Courts of law thus refused to regard the fact that the real nature and intent of the transaction was that the land was to be held as a security for a debt, and, regarding merely the form of the transaction, insisted on enforcing the rules relating to estates on condition in all their strictness.... ” Id. Venable went on to discuss the mortgagor’s equitable right of redemption, 12 fully established by the time of the reign of Charles I and then known as “the mortgagor’s Equity of Redemption,” where the mortgagor, due to “mishap or misfortune,” failed to pay timely the last portion of the debt.

Over time, courts of equity had begun to intervene in such situations and began to regard the true intent of the mortgage as a ²⁷³ security for a debt. Such resulted in “compelling the mortgagee, on tender by the mortgagor of the mortgage debt and interest even after default, to reconvey the property to the mortgagor.” Id. The courts, however, did not give the mortgagor an indefinite time to repay the debt. The court imposed a time-limit for the mortgagor to repay and under proper circumstances allowed the mortgagee to file a bill to foreclose even after equity proceedings were taken in respect the equity of redemption.

This foreclosure of the mortgage to then cut off the mortgagor’s right of redemption. 13 In an attempt to further regulate the foreclosure process, England passed the Statute of 7 Geo. 2, ch. 20 in 1734 (Alex. Stat. 725). That statute stated, in relevant part: “Whereas Mortgagees frequently bring Actions of Ejectment for the Recovery of Lands and Estates to them mortgaged, and bring Actions on Bonds given by Mortgagors to pay the Money secured by such Mortgages, and for performing the Covenants therein contained, and likewise ²⁷⁴ commence suits in his Majesty’s Courts of Equity, to foreclose their Mortgagors from redeeming their Estates; and the Courts of Law, where such Ejectments are brought, have not Power to compel such Mortgagees to accept the principal Monies and Interests due on such Mortgages, and Costs, or to stay such Mortgagees from proceeding to Judgment and Execution in such Actions; but such Mortgagors must have Recourse to a Court of Equity for that Purpose; in which Case likewise the Courts of Equity do not give Relief until the Hearing of the Cause; For Remedy thereof, and to obviate all Objections relating to the same; Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Comments, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the first Day of Easter Term one thousand seven hundred and thirty-four, where any Action shall be brought on any Bond for Payment of the Money secured by such Mortgage, or Performance of the Covenants therein contained, or where any Action of Ejectment shall be brought in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminister, or in the Court of Great Sessions in Wales, or in any of the superior Courts in the Counties Palatine of Chester, Lancaster, or Durham, by any Mortgagee or Mortgagees, his, her, or their Heirs, Executors, Administrators or Assigns, for the Recovery of the Possession of any mortgaged Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments[ 14 ] and no Suit shall be then depending in any of his Majesty’s Courts of Equity in that Part of Great Britain called England, for or touching the foreclosing or redeeming of such mortgaged Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments; if the Person or Persons having ²⁷⁵ Right to redeem such mortgaged Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments, and who shall appear and become Defendant or Defendants in such Action, shall at any Time, pending such Action, pay unto such Mortgagee or Mortgagees, or in case of his, her, or their Refusal, shall bring into Court, where such Action shall be depending, all the Principal Monies and Interest due on such Mortgage, and also such Costs as have been expended in any Suit or Suits at Law or in Equity upon such Mortgage ..., the Monies so paid to such Mortgagee or Mortgagees, or brought into such Court, shall be deemed and taken to be in full Satisfaction and Discharge of such Mortgage, and the Court ... may ... compel such Mortgagee or Mortgagees, at the Costs and Charge of such Mortgagor or Mortgagors, to assign, surrender, or reconvey such mortgaged Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, and such Estate and Interest, as such Mortgagee or Mortgagees have or hath therein, and deliver up all Deeds, Evidences, and Writings, in his, her, or their Custody, relating to the Title of such mortgaged Lands, ... unto such Mortgagor or Mortgagors, who shall have paid or brought such monies into the Court, ... or to such other Person or Persons, as he, she, or they, shall for that Purpose nominate or appoint.” [Footnote added.] Similar provisions further addressed rights of redemption. Carefully read, this statute provides additional protections for the rights of mortgagors.

These statutes modified what had been known as “strict foreclosure” 15 by apparently providing a method for persons, having gone into default, to pay the balance of the entire debt, and retaining and/or recovering their property. ²⁷⁶ Nevertheless problems continued to arise, where, as Venable states in The Law of Real Property, at p. 178, in reference to the early strict mortgages, that complete forfeitures may have still survived: “By it the whole mortgaged estate became the property of the mortgagee absolutely, when a portion of it, if sold, might be sufficient to pay the mortgage debt; and, instead of securing to the mortgagee an expeditious payment of the debt, to secure which the mortgage was executed, it might result after delays in transferring to him the property absolutely.” [Citation omitted.] We dealt with such a situation in the case of Boteler and Belt v. Brookes, 7 G. & J. 143 (1835), which, although it concerned the rights and obligations of trustees and their amenability to suit, made a full discussion of the Legislature’s intent in passing a Maryland statute, 1785 Md. Laws, Chap. 72, that sought to remedy further these perceived problems with the foreclosure process. In that case, a suit was brought “to compel the sureties of a trustee to bring into Court, the proceeds of a sale of mortgaged premises, sold in pursuance of a decree of a Court of equity.” Boteler, 7 G. & J. at 150 . The Court concerned itself with the question of whether it had the power to force the trustee to bring into court the monies received by the sale of the mortgaged property. In answering that question, the Court discussed the implications of the third section of 1785 Md. Laws, Chap. 72, which appears to be an early (the second) Maryland statute authorizing the sale of mortgaged premises, albeit, according to its language it may have been intended only to apply where the lending documents involved the rights of infants and incompetents.

The Boteler Court, nonetheless, applied it in a case not involving infants or incompetents. The Court quoted from this statute: “III. And be it enacted, That in all cases of application to the chancellor to foreclose any mortgage, he shall have full power and authority, in case the party against whom the bill shall be filed does not pay the sum due upon the mortgage by the time limitted in the decree for paying the same, to order and direct that the mortgaged premises, or ²⁷⁷ so much thereof as may be necessary to discharge the money due and costs, be sold for ready money, (unless the plaintiff shall consent to a sale on credit,) by a proper person to be appointed by the chancellor, and to order that the money raised by such sale be brought into court to be paid to the plaintiff; and the person empowered to make such sale shall give bond, with good security, to be approved by the chancellor, for the faithful execution of the trust, and full compliance with the order of the chancellor, and upon failure to execute such trust, the party grieved shall have a right to bring suit on such bond, or a copy thereof, against principal and security or securities, and shall recover the money for which the mortgaged premises shall have sold, and the plea of non est factum[ 16 ] shall not be received, unless verified as aforesaid; and the chancellor may also issue attachment of contempt against the person empowered to sell as aforesaid, and his security or securities, and may thereupon commit both principal and securities until his order shall be fully complied with, and contempts cleared.” 1785 Md. Laws, Chap. 72. See Boteler, 7 G. & J. at 153 .

This statute, in its entirety, imposed upon courts of equity certain requirements protecting the interests of mortgagees in the passing of decrees for the sale of mortgaged property and, subsequent to the statute, when a sale occurred, the proceeds were to apply initially to the costs of the sale, then the principal mortgage debt and then the interest owed the mortgagee. Any surplus, however, apparently went to the mortgagor under this 1785 statute. The process, prior to this statute, had been known as common-law foreclosure (by way of actions in ejectment at law filed by mortgagees or perhaps in equity to clear clouds on title), and even after the modification brought about by this statute affecting the distribution of the proceeds of sale, this type of foreclosure was still known as common-law foreclosure, although by that time it had been statutorily modified. Com ²⁷⁸ mon-law foreclosures apparently are still viable in Maryland, although, one supposes rare.

See infra. Common-law foreclosure, unlike foreclosures conducted under powers of sale and assent to decrees, required the completion of a judicial proceeding, and, prior to 1784, the obtaining of a court order in ejectment or some similar order before title could be affirmed in the mortgagee or reaffirmed in the mortgagor depending upon the evidence presented. It is unclear whether, under the prior common-law foreclosures, the courts had the power to provide that the property be sold and direct the disbursement of proceeds in any particular manner. This was clarified by the 1785 statute (and apparently by a 1784 statute as well).

In interpreting the 1785 statute in Boteler, this Court further stated: “The Legislature had, no doubt, a two-fold object in view, in authorizing a sale of mortgaged premises. As regarded the mortgagor himself, it was [a remedy] in many cases beneficial to him, as it was calculated to save a portion of his estate from passing to the mortgagee, beyond the power of redemption, while at the same time, full justice was done to the mortgagee; who obtained by a sale the amount loaned, and thus effectually reaped the fruits of his security in the most speedy and expeditious manner. The remedy by foreclosure alone, from its tedious character, was calculated to abridge very much this form of security; and with the view of avoiding difficulties sometimes growing out of foreclosures, the parties themselves had introduced, in many cases, the practice of inserting trusts for sale in mortgages. By simplifying remedies, by furnishing speedy redress, and by rendering these securities available according to the design of the parties, in entering into them, in the shortest time practicable, the Legislature, therefore, no doubt designed to encourage this kind of contract and security.

While the law held out to capitalists the greatest possible facilities, to the obtention of full indemnity, through the medium of the Courts, it at the same time, gave to those who might desire to take up money on such securities, much ²⁷⁹ more ample means of accomplishing their object. These too, were designs well deserving the attention of the Legislative body, presiding as it does, over the interests of a commercial community, where every effort to bring into captivity unemployed capital, is necessarily calculated to advance the interests of the State. Such objects are clearly designed by the Act of I784,[ 17 ] which appears to be the first law authorizing the sale of mortgaged premises, and which furnished encouragement to foreigners to lend their capital to citizens of the State; and the Act of 1785, ch. 72, was but the carrying out of the same great objects among our own citizens, by extending the authority to sell, in all cases of mortgages, where a default had occurred in the payment of the money secured to be paid. “Providing thus the means by a sale, and summary process, for the extinguishment of the mortgaged debt, it was evidently that which was solely looked to, and not the interest of the mortgagor, or any person who might, as his assignee, be incidentally interested in any possible surplus; for as has been very justly observed, it was not contemplated that more should be sold than was necessary to extinguish the debt due on the mortgage. And when the remedies by the third section are provided, they look only to such sum as would accomplish that object.

If indeed the law could have a practical operation, by limiting the sales in all cases, to the exact amount of the mortgage debt, such a proceeding would reach with precision the object of the Legislature. But it is impossible in anticipation to know, that a given number of acres will produce a specific sum of money, and as a sum of money equivalent to the mortgage debt has to be raised, the trustee, to carry the Act into effect at all, even where the decree limits him to the sale of only so much as may be necessary to satisfy the debt, must necessarily often have a surplus in hand, which must ²⁸⁰ belong to the mortgagor or those, who, in the eye of a Court of Equity may represent him.” Boteler, 7 G. & J. at 151-52 (emphasis added) (footnote added). It is clear that the Boteler court interpreted the Legislature’s intent in passing this statute, in substantial part, to be to protect the interests of the mortgagor to recover any excess value of his land realized as a surplus at a sale above the amount of the mortgage debt. According to another of our early decisions, this Act and the Court’s interpretation of it, did not remove common-law foreclosure, or apparently even altogether eliminate strict foreclosure, but merely added another remedy to address default, a foreclosure by judicial sale and advanced in the statute certain protections for the mortgagors.

In Andrews v. Scotton, 2 Bland 629 , 666 (1880), although that case did not involve a mortgage foreclosure but a judicial sale arising out of an estate matter, with a subsequent default, the Court compared mortgage foreclosure sales, saying: “The Court has been authorized by an Act of Assembly to decree a sale of the mortgaged property; 1785, ch. 72; s. 1, 2 and 3; 1837, ch. 292; but the provisions of that Act have been always considered as having merely introduced an additional remedy, and not as having abrogated any preexisting mode of relief, to which the mortgagee was entitled, or to have altered the proceedings in this Court on mortgages, in any other respect whatever, and therefore, the mortgagee may now, notwithstanding the provisions of that law, have a decree of foreclosure instead of a decree for a sale.” By the time of Venable, the foreclosure by sale had “practically supplanted” the strict foreclosure in Maryland. See Richard M. Venable, The Law of Real Property 178 (1892). See also Pannell & Smith v. Farmers Bank of Maryland, 7 H. & J. 202 (1826); 4 Kent Com. 181. A problem continued to exist, however, in that the mortgagee still had to commence to proceed, first by way of a bill of equity in order to foreclose a mortgage.

To remedy this problem, mortgagees began the practice of inserting “power of sale” provisions into their ²⁸¹ mortgages. As Venable defines it, power of sale provisions “expressly stipulated in the mortgage that, on default by the mortgagor, the mortgagee might sell the property in the manner and on the terms specified in the mortgage,” without obtaining a prior decree authorizing the sale. Richard M. Venable, The Law of Real Property 179. In discussing power of sale mortgage provisions, Venable said: “Courts of equity in England recognized and enforced these powers.

The great objection to them was that they committed a power to the mortgagee which was not compatible with his relation to the mortgagor. He was practically a trustee to sell for the benefit of himself and of the mortgagor; but his interests were not identical with those of the mortgagor, and he was subjected to a temptation to abuse the position of trust which he occupied by not exerting himself to sell to the best advantage. In some of the United States the courts of equity refused to recognize these powers, and in others they were viewed with such disfavor that Deeds of Trust to Secure supplanted mortgages with powers to sell ( 3 Md. 96 -7). “In these deeds of trust the borrower conveyed the property intended to secure the debt, not to the lender, but to some third person, and empowered him to sell on default (4 Kent Com. 146-7). In Maryland, however, mortgages with power to sell were recognized and the power enforced; but in order to remove all doubt as to the right to exercise such powers ( 3 Md. 96 ), and to remove the manifest objections to such mortgages, Acts were passed to regulate the exercise of the power and prevent its abuse (1785, c. 72; 1825, c. 203; 1826, c. 192; 1833, c. 181; 1836, c. 249, 1874, ch. 460; 1878, c. 483; codified in 2 Md. C. Art. 66, ss. 6-20).

These Acts clothed the mortgagee with the responsibilities and duties of a trustee, and strictly directed the method of his procedure in exercising his power to sell. And, in order to prevent the mortgagor from hampering the mortgagee by filing bills in equity to enjoin him on frivolous pretexts intended to delay or gain time, the mortgagor’s right to enjoin was restricted to certain specified cases (1826, c. 292; ²⁸² 1886, c. 249, codified in 2 Md. C. Art. 66, ss. 16-18). In consequence of these provisions the mortgage with a power to sell is by far the most prevalent form of security in Maryland, although deeds of trust to secure may exist and are of frequent occurrence.” Id. (emphasis added).

This Court, in Charles v. Clagett, 3 Md. 82 (1852), set out a brief background as to power of sale clauses. Judge Eccleston, speaking for the Court, stated: “Mortgages with power of sale, are treated of at marg. p. 124 of 1 Coote, (69 Law Lib.) 170; and this authority was much relied upon by the appellant’s counsel, as sustaining his view of the subject. Where the power of sale is given to a mortgagee himself, or to a third person, merely as a naked power to sell, it need not, nor do I presume that it does, at all, impugn or interfere with the ordinary and usual rights of a mortgagee, which exist in a mortgage, similar, in all other respects to such a deed, except in regard to this power. But when the estate is conveyed to a third party in fee, in trust to sell, the deed is but a quasi or equitable mortgage. “This power of sale is regulated in New York and some other States by statutes. “Our act of 1825, ch. 203, on this subject, particularly the third section, has been insisted upon by the appellant’s counsel, as conclusive authority, for holding the present deed to be a mortgage within the meaning of the act of 1846. “According to my opinion, this provision relates to such mortgages as give special powers of sale to the mortgagees, or to others: the special powers to others meaning merely naked powers, and not conveyances of estates, to third persons in trust, to sell. “At one time doubts were entertained as to the validity of sales, under powers contained in mortgages, unless made with the concurrence of the mortgagor, or the sanction of a ²⁸³ court of equity.

And it would seem that some such consideration induced the legislature to pass the act of 1825.... ” Id. at 95-96 . In Charles the Court, as indicated above, recognized that the Legislature sought to clear up any doubt as to the validity of a power of sale mortgage when it enacted the Act of 1825, ch. 203. That Act, in relevant part, stated: “4. And be it enacted, That all such powers to mortgagees made, or to be made, authorising sales, shall be executed, acknowledged and recorded as deeds and conveyances usually are before the conveyances for the sale be executed, and every such sale [under a power of sale contained in a mortgage] shall be at public auction or vendue, and public notice shall be given thereof by advertisements.... “5.

And be it enacted, That in every case ... an affidavit ... by the printer ... and also an affidavit ... by the person who fixed the [advertisement] upon the [court house] door; and also, an affidavit stating the circumstances respecting the sale ... made by the person who acted as auctioneer at the sale ... shall be received in every court of law or equity in this state, as prima facia evidence of the facts in such affidavit set forth.” [Alterations added.] This statute evidences an early statutory authorization, or acceptance, of foreclosure sales under powers of sale contained in mortgages, in that it addressed and resolved problems that had apparently arisen in those types of foreclosures. It did so by enacting requirements for the sales and the reporting of the sales to the courts. Venable next notes that the City of Baltimore sought greater protection of mortgagees’ interests than was provided by the Act of 1825. This greater protection, then applicable only in the City of Baltimore, first was provided by the Act of 1833, ch. 181. 18 This Act specifically stated, in relevant part: ²⁸⁴ “Sec. 2.

And be it enacted, (in order to the facilitating the enforcement of mortgages of real property and estate in the city of Baltimore,) that in all cases of conveyances by way of mortgage of lands or hereditaments or chattels real, situate in the city of Baltimore, and where in the said conveyances the mortgagor shall declare his assent to the passing of a decree as hereinafter mentioned, it shall and may be lawful for the mortgagees or their assigns, at any time after filing the same to be recorded, to submit to the Chancellor, or to Baltimore county court or any Judge thereof, the said conveyances or copies under seal of said county court thereof, and the said Chancellor or court or Judge aforesaid, may thereupon forthwith decree, that the mortgaged premises shall be sold.... ” [Footnote added.] As the text of the statute reveals, the Act of 1883, ch. 181 permitted a particular type of mortgage commonly referred to in the present day as an “assent to decree” mortgage or lien instrument. As Venable states, this type of security provides: “[T]hat the mortgagor may incorporate in the mortgage an assent on his part to the passage of a decree in equity for the sale of the property on his default. Under this consent the mortgagee may, immediately on taking the mortgage, file an ex parte petition for a decree of sale to be made on default; and, immediately on default, the trustee appointed in the decree may proceed to make sale in conformity with the terms of the decree; or the mortgagee may file his ex parte petition after default and have a decree for the sale.” Richard M. Venable, The Law of Real Property 180. Evidently, because the statute originally only provided “assent to decree” foreclosures in Baltimore City, the particular process became prevalent in that jurisdiction — and remains so.

It is less frequently utilized in other jurisdictions, even though they are now authorized statewide. See Md.Code (1974, 2003 Repl. Vol.), § 7-105 of the Real Property Article. In the case of Hays v. Dorsey, 5 Md. 99 (1853), this Court affirmed a decree of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, which was sitting as a court of equity, that had directed the ²⁸⁵ sale of mortgaged premises.

Hays dealt with a mortgage that was duly executed pursuant to the Acts of 1833 and 1836. We stated that “[t]he mortgagor, by executing his conveyance under the act, gives his ‘assent’ to the passage of the decree; and so far as the authority of the court to pass it is involved, it is only necessary to file a petition and the mortgage.” Id. at 101 . With respect to foreclosures pursuant to an assent to a decree, this Court, in Ahrens v. Ijams, 158 Md. 412 , 148 A. 816 (1930), said: “[T]he mortgagees had at their command two plain remedies which were prescribed by statute, whereby they could at one time and in one proceedings sell the entire lot, by beginning, either in the city or the county, [at the time of the mortgage, the property was intersected by the boundary between Baltimore City and Baltimore County and the mortgage was recorded in both jurisdictions] a bill of complaint for foreclosure in accordance with ancient equity practice [common-law foreclosure] or a sale under the power specifically conferred by the mortgage upon the mortgagees, their personal representatives or assigns, or their attorney named in the mortgage. Supra; Code, art. 16, secs. 90, 92; art. 66, sec. 15; Baltimore City Charter & [Public Local Laws] (1927), art. 4, sec. 730, p. 438; Miller’s Equity Proc., secs. 445-447, 452-458, 472.

Instead of choosing either of these two methods, the mortgagees availed themselves of the third remedy of a foreclosure under assent to a decree. By this election the mortgagees, and those claiming title as successors in title to the purchaser at the mortgage foreclosure sale, are bound.... “The practice of a foreclosure sale under an assent to a decree originated with the Act of 1833, ch. 181, and has continued to the present. It affords a summary remedy for the benefit of mortgagees. Its operation is limited to cases where the mortgagor has in the mortgage deed declared his assent to the passage forthwith of a decree, in conformity with the provisions of the act, providing, before default, for a sale of the mortgage premises.

The proceeding is ex ²⁸⁶ parte until after the decree and a sale under the decree. In order to obtain the decree it is only necessary to file the mortgage and a petition for the decree. No summons is necessary, and no notice is required to be given to the mortgagor or any person claiming under him, and neither prior nor subsequent mortgagees or incumbrancers need be made parties. The mortgagee is entitled to the decree at any time after the recording of the mortgage, and without regard to default.

If there has been no default, the decree is entered prospectively. If no default occurs, it never becomes effective, but, should there be a default afterward occurring, the decree is enforced. See Miller’s Equity Proc., sec. 474 et seq.” Ahrens, 158 Md. at 417-18 , 148 A. at 819 (alterations added). Thus, the historical differences between power of sale and assent to decree foreclosures is that the former was created initially by the common-law and later formalized by statute while the latter is purely a creature of statute.

Therefore, when necessary to examine the respective foreclosures, common-law history may be important in respect to strict foreclosures, common-law foreclosures and power of sale foreclosures, but relatively unimportant in assent to decree foreclosures. As of 1892, when Venable published his The Law of Real Property, he stated that mortgage law was regulated in the following manner: “Mortgages with power to sell, being regulated in Maryland by general law applicable to the whole State, are in the city of Baltimore called County Mortgages, although they may and do exist in the city of Baltimore. Mortgages with an assent to a decree, being regulated by local law, exist only in the city of Baltimore, and are generally called City Mortgages. Mortgages in which there is neither a power to sell nor an assent to a decree are called, by way of distinction, Common Law Mortgages.” Richard M. Venable, The Law of Real Property 180 (footnote omitted).

Venable also points out that it was common at that ²⁸⁷ time, in Baltimore City, to have both an assent to a decree and a power of sale provision within a single mortgage. Id. Currently, the Maryland Rules state that “ Tower of sale’ means a provision in a lien instrument [‘mortgage, a deed of trust, a land installment contract,’ Md. Rule 14 — 201(b)(5) ] authorizing a person to sell the property upon a specified default,” Md. Rule 14 — 201(b)(6), and that “ ‘Assent to decree’ means a provision in a lien instrument declaring an assent to the entry of an order for the sale of the property subject to the lien upon a specified default,” Md. Rule 14-201(b)(l). Both types of mortgage provisions are now governed by the current Maryland Rules, and are, as we have indicated, authorized by Md.Code (1974, 2003 Repl.Vol.), § 7-105 of the Real Property Article.

A short note on the advent of deeds of trust is in order in that the lien instrument in the present case is a deed of trust with a power of sale. As used in the case at bar, and as such lien instruments are often used, they operate much as would a mortgage with a power of sale, except that the trustees would be exercising the power, not the mortgagee or mortgagee’s assigns. Deeds of trust apparently came into being in this country as a result of the harshness of “strict foreclosure,” and as an intellectual reaction to mortgages with powers of sale included. In his 1892 treatise, Venable describes the distinctions between deeds of trust and mortgages: “It has already been seen ... that a debtor may pledge his lands as a security by conveying them to a third person in trust for the creditor, as well as by conveying them directly to the creditor as in the case of a mortgage.

Conveyances of property, as a security or indemnity to some person other than the person secured, are called deeds of trust to secure, or simply deeds of trust or trust mortgages. They differ from technical mortgages in their form and manner of execution and in the rights of the parties. ²⁸⁸ “... The parties to a mortgage are the mortgagor (debt- or), and mortgagee (creditor). The parties to a deed of trust to secure are the grantor (debtor), the grantee (trustee), and the cestui que trust (creditor).... “...

In Maryland where a debtor wishes to secure a creditor by a pledge of lands the mortgage is the common form of security, although the deed of trust is frequently used in such cases. But where the number of creditors to be secured is great, and the bonds or notes or debts secured are held by different persons, who may assign them with or without endorsement, it is almost a necessity to use the deed of trust.... And so where a number of creditors are to be secured, the deed of trust is practically in universal use. “... The grantor’s rights are usually stated in the deed---- “The rights of the cestui que trust are those of cestuis que trust generally, except as modified by the terms of the deed.

The creditors are strictly cestuis que trust and not mortgagees. They have no right, consequently, on default, to take possession of the property and apply the rents and profits to the payment of their claims; nor have they any right of foreclosure such as a mortgagee would have under a technical mortgage ( 3 Md. 82, 94-5 ). Their only remedy is to compel the enforcement of the trust according to its terms ( 45 Md. 396, 408 ). “The rights and duties of the grantee (trustee) also depend on the terms and conditions of the deed.” The Law of Real Property at 253-55. Even prior to Venable’s The Law of Real Property, Richard H. Coote, in his A Treatise on The Law of Mortgage (1837), discussed powers of sale in reference to both regular mortgages and deeds of trust.

Coote stated: “It is now frequent in practice to give the mortgagee a power of sale.... The modes of accomplishing this are various. In some instances, the estate is limited to the use ²⁸⁹ of the mortgagee for a term of years, with the usual proviso for redemption, and subject thereto to the use of trustees in fee upon trust to sell.... I’Ajnd, in other instances, it is limited to the mortgagee in fee, with the usual proviso for redemption, attended with a declaration, that if default is made in payment at the given time, it shall be lawful for the mortgagee, his heirs or assigns, after notice in writing requiring payment, to sell, ...

Either instance is valid and effectual, but the latter is most to be recommended; for on breach of the proviso, it bestows on the mortgagee an absolute estate; and at the end of a further time gives him a power of sale; and leaves open to him the option, in the mean time, of filing his bill to foreclose.” A Treatise on the Law of Mortgage 55 (alteration added). So while the instruments, as most often used, are similar in operation, there are many more uses of deeds of trust than are practical for mortgages. Multiple bond holders, multiple creditors, the need for the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries to remain unknown, etc. are all practical in a deed of trust format and impracticable, or impossible, under a mortgage format. Often, for commercial lenders particularly, deeds of trusts are much more efficient, while for private lenders not in the banking or mortgage business, the use of the mortgage format may be more efficient.

Since perhaps as early as pre-Magna Carta times, and certainly no later than the early 18th Century, there have been four types of mortgages (and deeds of trust) and four modes of foreclosure. There have been “strict mortgages,” “common-law mortgagees” (and perhaps common-law deeds of trust), mortgages with “powers to sell,” and mortgages with “assent to decrees.” Common-law mortgages contain no “power to sell” or “assent to decree” provisions. Some mortgages and deeds of trust may contain both a “power to sell” and an “assent to decree.” Similarly, there have been “strict foreclosures,” common-law foreclosures, foreclosures under powers to sell and foreclosures under assents to decree. “Strict mortgages” and ²⁹⁰ “strict foreclosures” have not survived the test of time and have been statutorily rendered obsolete. Common-law mortgages and common-law foreclosures have survived, although their use is now rare because almost every mortgage or deed of trust contains either a power to sell or an assent to decree provision.

However, if a drafter forgets to include one or the other of the last mentioned provisions, all is not lost — a common-law foreclosure can still occur, although one supposes that, at least currently, it is a rare practitioner who will come across a common-law mortgage. In other words, if a modern mortgage contains neither a power of sale or an assent to decree, the mortgagee, upon default of the mortgage debt, can still file a Bill of Complaint requesting relief, including a judicial sale of the property.

III

Discussion With this historical perspective to guide us, we address the issues in the present case, especially the alleged common-law rule, said to have been created by this Court’s relatively recent case law, i.e., common-law, that a defaulting purchaser is entitled to any excess funds from a resale of mortgaged premises. We next comment on the specific history, or lack thereof, of this alleged rule. One of the first Maryland cases involving the measures to be taken upon a default by a purchaser at a judicial sale was Andrews v. Scotton, 2 Bland 629 (1830), on remand after a prior Court of Appeals’ decision in Anderson v. Foulke, 2 H. & G. 346 (1828). It is important to note that, while the sale was a judicial sale, it was not a mortgage foreclosure sale.

It was a judicial sale arising out of the administration of an estate. Scotton had contracted to purchase from Andrews property that Andrews had purchased from another (but had not yet received a deed thereto). There was no mortgage or deed of trust ever executed. Scotton had made several payments on the property to Andrews, but still owed a considerable sum when he died.

Upon his death it was discovered that he was insolvent. As a way out, the parties went into court and had the court decree a judicial sale in reference to his estate. The ²⁹¹ high bidder at the sale, Anderson, subsequently defaulted, after claiming (and losing on the claim) that the title to part of the property was not clear. The Chancellor initially directed that Anderson be put in “detention” for contempt for failing to go through with the purchase. 19 Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, it upheld the power of the Chancellor to hold Anderson in contempt and to order a resale of the property.

At several points in the various proceedings, both before the Court of Appeals’ initial decision and after it, the Chancellor noted: “The manner of sending property into the market, as well as the mode of sale, generally adopted in this State, differs, perhaps, in some particulars, from that of other countries. The form of ordinary sales of merchandise by auction is the same in this State as in England. But the mode of making a sale of property under the authority of the Court of Chancery in England is different.... “In this State the manner and terms of sale are particularly prescribed in the decree; and the trustee is directed to conform thereto.... “But whatever variety or difference may exist as to the mere modality of sale, the intentions and general objects are the same every where and in all cases. The benefit of the interested parties, for whom the Court makes the sale, is always and chiefly regarded....

To attain them [the ends intended], in England, if after the biddings are closed, anyone else comes in and offers a much higher price, the biddings may be opened, and the additional offer accepted. This phrase of ‘opening the biddings,’ which, in the English books, occur so frequently.... In this State, there has been no instance of opening the biddings---- ²⁹² “From these authorities it appears to have been the settled law of the English Court of Chancery long before, and ever since our Revolution, that on a purchaser’s failing to comply, the Court would, on application, after the ratification of the sale, compel him to complete his purchase by process of attachment for contempt. [In other words, the defaulting purchaser would be locked up. It appears that there was then no other remedy in Maryland.] “It is a clear and well settled principle of this Court, that where [estate] property has been sold under its decree, the Court, as the vendor for the benefit of those interested, retains an equitable lien for the payment of the purchase money.

The most usual way of enforcing this lien, has been by petition of a party interested, setting forth the facts, and praying that the property may be re-sold to pay the balance of the purchase money. And a sale may be ordered accordingly, at the risk of the delinquent purchaser.” In concluding, the Chancellor ordered: “And it is further decreed, that the trustee ... bring into this Court, all sums of money he may receive or recover in any of the modes hereinbefore specified, and make report of his proceedings accordingly, to the end, that no more may be collected by the said several modes of proceeding, than one entire satisfaction of the whole amount of principal, interest and costs, which ought to be paid by the said Samuel Anderson.” Andrews, 2 Bland at 642-70 (alterations added) (citations omitted). As can be seen, this case is silent as to the distribution of excess funds remaining after accounting for the original purchase price from Scotton, but primarily concerned itself with the alternatives available in 1830, when a purchaser defaulted, i.e., incarceration for contempt or a resale at the risk of the defaulting purchaser. The Court explicitly “reserved” a resolution as to the excess sum distribution.

If the Chancellor believed at the point of time of a resale that the excess ²⁹³ proceeds at the second sale automatically belonged to the defaulting purchaser at the first sale, there would have been no need to reserve determining the distribution of the excess until Scotton’s creditors were notified, because the proceeds would not have inured to Scotton’s estate in the first instance, but to Anderson, and thus would not have been available to creditors of Scotton’s estate. This case, accordingly, is not a case supporting a common-law holding, even in sales arising out of estate matters, that such a defaulting purchaser is entitled to excess proceeds upon resale. While Andrews and Anderson concerned the remedies against defaulting purchasers, which included a resale, the next Maryland case more directly involved the matter of the distribution of excess proceeds at a resale above the proceeds at the original sale. But again, the sale, while a judicial sale, was not a mortgage or deed of trust foreclosure sale.

In other words, there was no private contract involved. In Mealey v. Page, 41 Md. 172 (1874), the original sale was conducted by an executor under a power of sale contained in a will for the purpose of being able to make disbursements to the heirs of the testator. There was no debtor or creditor involved; there was no possibility of a deficiency decree simply because it was not that type of judicial sale. The purchaser defaulted, and, pursuant to a statute, the court ordered a resale of the property at the risk of the defaulting purchaser.

At the resale the bid was higher than the bid at the original sale. The first sale was under a power granted by will, and the second sale conducted pursuant to a statute. Neither arose under an instrument of indebtedness. The Court stressed that all of the proceedings leading to that particular order of resale, had treated the property to be sold at the resale as the property of the defaulting purchaser.

In the instant case, however, upon the failure of the property to bring in a sufficient sum at the original sale, a large deficiency remained, and even after the resale, a deficiency still remained. In both sales in the instant case, it appears that the property being sold was being sold pursuant to the rights of the mortgagee and in which the mortgagor retained ²⁹⁴ rights to see to the sufficiency of the purchase price and the methods of sale, even as to the resale. The two advertisements were identical in identifying the property to be sold as that encumbered by the debt of Theodore B. McCann, and the advertisement for the resale made no mention of there having been an initial sale. Therefore, in each sale the property was sold as that of the debtor.

In other words, it would appear that the original mortgagor retains rights to challenge the procedures, advertisement, etc. at the second sale, in order to protect himself from a deficiency. The situations in Mealey , in comparison with the present case, and with lien instrument foreclosure sales generally, accordingly, are very different. In Mealey , the Court noted that the resolution of the issue as to whom the excess funds in that type of case belonged depended upon: “[A]nother question, and that is, whether the property sold at the re-sale was sold as the property of the first purchaser, or as that belonging to the estate of the testator, without reference to any rights or liabilities growing out of the first sale.” That Court resolved the issue under the circumstances there present, answering: “Instead of rejecting altogether the appellant’s [original defaulting purchaser] claim to the surplus proceeds of the re-sale, the Orphans’ Court should have disposed of the product of that sale in the following manner: First, by deducting the costs and expenses attending the re-sale, including a reasonable fee for services of counsel in filing petition and procuring the necessary orders thereon for resale; secondly, by deducting the executor’s commissions on the whole amount of the proceeds of the re-sale; thirdly, then the amount of the original purchase money, with interest thereon from the date of the first sale to the time of the receipt of the purchase money by the executor from the purchaser at the second sale; and, lastly, after all these deductions,. whatever balance of such proceeds of re-sale ²⁹⁵ may have remained, should have been awarded to the appellant.” Id. at 185-86 . As is clear no mortgage debt or lien was involved in Mealey .

A crucial difference in estate sales as contrasted with lien instrument foreclosure sales, is that in estate sales there is no debtor, and thus, there is no possibility of a deficiency as to the mortgage debt. Moreover, in mortgage and deed of trust transactions, the mortgages or deeds of trust are actual conveyances of property to the mortgagee or trustee, with conditions that cause a defeasance of title upon the satisfaction of the indebtedness. And in the sale procedures, the selling entity is charged with making appropriate efforts to generate proper prices, not only to address the satisfaction of the debt, i.e., protecting the creditor, but also to protect the interests of the mortgagor, i.e., to realize the full value of the land. As indicated, resales generated during proceedings arising out of lien instrument indebtedness foreclosures, encompass much more extensive interests than the interests of the parties in Mealey and its predecessors.

The next case involving this general issue, Early v. Dorsett, 45 Md. 462 (1877), also arose out of estate issues and did not involve liens of indebtedness. Again, the court decreed a sale “of real estate devised by will,” for the purposes of distribution amongst the devisees. The original purchaser, Sasscer, first complied with the terms of sale which required him to give bond for the balance of the purchase price. However, before he paid the balance of the purchase price and had received a deed, he mortgaged the property to Early.

Thereafter, Sasscer defaulted on the balance of the purchase price he had bid at the original estate sale, and thus never received legal title to the land, but had nonetheless mortgaged it. The court ordered a resale in respect to the original sale arising out of the estate administration. Early thereafter recovered a separate judgment (based upon the debt secured by the invalid mortgage) in another separate case against Sasscer (the defaulting purchaser who had mortgaged the property to Early), and issued an attachment against Sasscer and caused ²⁹⁶ it to be laid in the hands of the selling trustees as to any and all proceeds from the second estate sale that might belong to Sasscer. No mortgage foreclosure sale was involved in the actions.

Early then assigned his interest in the judgment to Dorsett and others. Sasscer, Early, Dorsett and others then began to fight over who was entitled to the total proceeds. The total proceeds included the deposit sum that Sasscer had actually paid pursuant to the original sale and the price paid at the second sale. Presumably the total of those sums exceeded Sasscer’s bid at the original sale.

The Court states the difference as being $1,718.55. Therefore, technically, the case did not involve a bid at the second sale in excess of the bid at the first sale, but a combining of the actual cash deposit paid at the first sale before default and the bid price at the resale. Additionally, although there was a mortgage involved (Early’s from Sasscer), that mortgage was not an instrument generating the judicial sale involved in that case and Early did not involve a mortgage foreclosure sale under that, or under any mortgage, although one of the issues was whether and what amount of the proceeds Early and or his assigns might be due. The original sale and the resale were primarily sales to produce funds for distribution in an estate.

The Court then relied on Mealey : “The grounds upon which in a case like this, where there is a re-sale at the purchaser’s risk, to enforce payment of unpaid purchase money, the purchaser is held responsible for the deficiency, and is entitled to the surplus resulting from the re-sale, are very fully stated in the recent case of Mealey.... ” Id. at 466. Accordingly, the first three Maryland cases on the general subject did not involve sales arising out of private contracts, i.e., mortgage foreclosure sales, but were sales arising out of estates in order to raise funds for distribution to heirs or other distributees. There were no debtors and creditors directly involved. We find this to be instructive.

In those cases there were no other interests to be protected, such as the contractual interests of mortgagees to recover all sums due them, or the contractual rights and interests of mortga ²⁹⁷ gors to protect themselves from deficiency decrees or to recover any equity representing land value due to them for the value of the land over and above the amount of the mortgage debt. Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that Brwndige v. Morrison, 56 Md. 407 (1881), also involved proceedings arising out of estate matters. It involved the sale of personal property, and does not appear to have involved any lien instrument. In that case the Court, consistent with the three previous cited cases, held that the original defaulting purchaser was entitled to any excess proceeds between the prices at the second sale and the prices at the first sale.

The second sale was a private sale and it is unclear whether the first sale was a private or public sale. The opinion itself cites to no prior cases, although the synopsis contains a reference to Anderson (on “risk to the defaulting purchaser issue”) and the earlier case of Billingslea v. Baldwin, 20 23 Md. 85 (1865). Billingslea appears to have no relevance to the present issue, or to the issue it was cited to in Brwndige . Aukam v. Zantzinger, 94 Md. 421 , 51 A. 93 (1902), appears to be the first case in which the Court opined, albeit only as dicta, in the context of a lien instrument foreclosure sale and subsequent resale upon default by the original purchaser, that the defaulting purchaser from the first sale was entitled to the difference in the price paid at the second sale as it related to the first sale, if the second sale price was higher than the first sale price.

In the case the Court said, as dicta: “ ‘The proceedings for a resale, after final ratification, treat the first contract as binding on the original purchaser. The property is resold as the property of the defaulting purchaser, and at his risk. He is therefore entitled to any excess in the proceeds of sale at the resale, just as he would ²⁹⁸ be responsible for any deficiency.’ Miller’s Eq. Proc., 620 (sec.526), and cases cited.” Aukam, 94 Md. at 427 , 51 A. at 95 .

The only cases cited in the section of Miller’s Eq. Proc. are Mealey, Early and Brundige, discussed supra, none of which involved mortgage or deed of trust foreclosure sale and resale proceedings. The actual holding in Aukam , however, was that the defaulting purchaser at the first sale had a right to file exceptions to the ratification of the second sale because under the aforementioned cases, the court believed that he might be entitled to excess proceeds because he was responsible for any “shortage.” Defaulting purchasers may well have standing to file exceptions to the manner in which a resale is held because of their continuing liability for “shortages,” but that circumstance in and of itself, affords them no claim to any excess sums bid at the resale. Once the sum received at the resale is above the price bid at the initial sale and also covers the costs of both sales, there is no “shortage” for which he may be liable.

At that point he has no remaining interest to protect in the resale or any claim to proceeds from the resale. Thus, it is at this point in the evolutionary process, that the language, apparently dicta, in our Aukam decision in 1902, that the alleged common-law rule that a defaulting purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale is entitled to excess proceeds at resale caused by his own default, came into being in this State. In other words, prior to our 1902 Aukam decision, it had not been clearly stated (if stated at all) in Maryland. Additionally, in conducting our research into the early origins of lien instrument law in England, we have uncovered no mention of it in the pre-Revolution era of that country.

It is a rule (if it is a rule) that appears home grown, with none of the ancient traditions of so much of our common-law of real property. Accordingly, in our resolution of the question posed by the Court as to whether the alleged common-law rule first mentioned in Aukam , should be retained, we are not restrained by a thousand years of the common-law — but restrained only by our own, relatively recent possible creation. Even then, the ²⁹⁹ seeds out of which it grew were not lien instrument foreclosure sales and resales, but cases involving sales and resales in respect to estate matters, in which there was never any question of private contracts, lien instruments of debtors and creditors, deficiency decrees, the language of lien instruments, and the like. Nonetheless, at first glance, an argument can certainly be made that the supposed present common-law rule in Maryland (arising only out of the dicta of Aukam v. Zantzinger, 94 Md. 421, 428 , 51 A. 93, 95 (1902)) might be that a defaulting purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled, generally, to any excess funds stemming from a foreclosure resale which was necessary because of the defaulting purchaser’s failure to comply with the terms of the first sale.

See Alexander Gordon, IV, Gordon on Maryland Foreclosures, § 28.02 at 840 (3d ed.1994). However, another of our early cases was Werner v. Clark, 108 Md. 627 , 71 A. 305 (1908), decided just six years after Aukam . The Werner Court discussed the case of State v. Second Nat. Bank of Hoboken, 84 Md. 325 , 35 A. 889 (1896), which pre-dated Aukam , but was not mentioned in Aukam.

Hoboken involved a specific local law provision in Baltimore City relating to taxing of auction sales. Hoboken is especially important because all of the cases relied on in Aukam arose out of estate sales and thus the language was intended to be applicable in estate sale situations. The sales in Hoboken, however, involved mortgage foreclosure sales and resales. Thus, relevant language the Court used in Hoboken, that postdated the estate cases relied on by the Aukam , court, apparently refers to sales arising out of the foreclosure of lien instruments and, as indicated, was not considered by the Aukam court.

In Hoboken, there had been a defaulting purchaser at the first sale, and then a resale. Baltimore City was attempting to tax both of the sales. There, the Court first addressed the then practice in equity relating to foreclosure sales where the ³⁰⁰ original sale had been set aside due to sale irregularities (not including a default by a purchaser): “This is, of course, not a case similar to a sale by a Court of Equity after a former sale has been set aside by the Court. Of course, in such cases, under every principle of law, the first sale is a nullity.

The theory upon which it is set aside is that the agents of the Court have not acted properly or wisely in making the attempted sale. In such cases there is only one sale.” Id. at 327, 35 A. 889 . The Court then discussed the rule as to the general nature of resales when the first sale is not consummated by the original purchaser, which is the situation in the case at bar, and the situation, for that matter, in Aukam : “It is obvious the tax or duty is