Donald v. Chaney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] purchaser at a judicial sale will be excused from [the] requirement to pay interest upon the unpaid balance for the period between the time fixed for settlement and the date of actual settlement only when the delay [1] stems from neglect on the part of the trustee; [2] was caused by necessary appellate review of lower court determinations^] or [3] was caused by the conduct of other persons beyond the power of the purchaser to control or ameliorate.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Md. App. 388 - Thomas v. Dore · Baltrotsky v. Kugler

2. “In ordinary circumstances and in the absence of special provisions in the sale offer, a delay caused by difficulty in obtaining financing would not discharge a purchaser from the obligation to pay interest from the date fixed for settlement by the terms of sale until a delayed settlement. In this case the sole factor causing the delay in settlement was the inability of the Purchasers to obtain financing for the payment of the balance of the purchase price within the time fixed for settlement under the terms of sale stated in the advertisement. It plainly is the duty of a purchaser at a judicial sale to assure the court that he is ready, willing and able to comply with the terms fixed for its completion. We find in this record no equitable considerations justifying relief to the Purchasers from the obligation to pay interest on the unpaid balance for the period of delay in settlement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Md. App. 388 - Thomas v. Dore · 197 Md. App. 91 - Zorzit v. 915 W. 36th Street, LLC

3. “[The former owner’s] tenacious [efforts] to void the foreclosure sale and delay settlement places the present case squarely within the third equitable circumstance delineated in Donald , “conduct of other persons beyond the power of the purchaser to control or ameliorate.” The court filings catalogued previously illustrate the conclusion that the foreclosure purchasers were confronted with a significant amount of litigation maneuvers, albeit ultimately unavailing, which clouded their respective titles during their pendency. Settlement was delayed understandably.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Md. App. 388 - Thomas v. Dore · 197 Md. App. 91 - Zorzit v. 915 W. 36th Street, LLC