2 total
Remaining subdivision security payable to secured creditor after agreement declared void.
An interpleader application was brought by a municipality holding the remaining balance of a developer’s subdivision security deposit after the original developer defaulted.
Competing claims were made by the developer’s secured creditor and by a subsequent purchaser who completed the subdivision under a new agreement.
The court interpreted the original subdivision agreement, particularly provisions governing default and the return of securities upon voiding of the agreement.
It held that once the municipality declared the agreement null and void, the remaining security was contractually required to be returned to the original owner, subject to expenses.
As the secured creditor of that owner, the creditor was entitled to the remaining funds.
Appeal dismissed as trial judge's findings on dedication and acceptance were supported by evidence.
The appellants appealed a judgment regarding the dedication and acceptance of land.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact on dedication and acceptance were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and that there was no error in the application of the law to those facts.
