The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants for default on a third mortgage.
The defendants argued there was a genuine issue for trial, claiming an oral agreement that the mortgage was merely security for construction work and no payments were required.
The court held that evidence of the oral agreement was inadmissible under both the Statute of Frauds and the parol evidence rule, as it directly contradicted the clear terms of the written mortgage and guarantee.
Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment for the principal amount and ordered a reference to determine the remaining amounts due.
