The appellant sought to enforce a mortgage registered against residential property owned by the respondent.
The respondent's spouse had borrowed money from the appellant and signed a promissory note agreeing to register a mortgage as security.
The respondent contended the mortgage was unenforceable because she received no consideration and understood it was to replace an existing second mortgage, not to secure her spouse's debts.
The trial judge dismissed the action.
On appeal, the court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent received no consideration and that the mortgage's purpose was to discharge the existing second mortgage, not to secure new loans.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
