Robey also testified the house or property try resold for $71,, hence amount new demo legal was absolve to deal with much more an indication out of market value

¶ 8 The newest Judge from Municipal Appeals truthfully seen your $85, shape towards the property value the house or property was at brand new large end of your own guess produced by Mr. Robey, who is in the realtor industry. Mr. Properly, one to judgment is actually supported by evidence demonstrated, and does not in any way oppose the fresh new results of-fact by demo courtroom.

¶ nine The brand new Robeys in addition to assert that the trial legal erred www.servicecashadvance.com/installment-loans-az from inside the decreasing so you’re able to award him or her a keen attorney’s percentage. They argue that while the results of-fact become “a good attorney fee to be put because of the Legal abreast of proper application” the legal is required to award this new attorney’s fee. This new trial judge frequently reconsidered one prize since the log entry rejected the Robeys an enthusiastic attorney’s payment. The fresh Courtroom out of Municipal Appeals affirmed.

¶ 10 This new Robeys allege he is permitted a keen attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 O.S.2001, § 176, that provides: “In a task taken to demand one lien the latest party to own exactly who wisdom was rendered are permitted recover a fair attorney’s fee, getting fixed by the court, which should be taxed once the costs in the action.” The fresh Robeys argue the action facing Much time Coastline is actually for starvation of its statutory correct while the lienholders so you’re able to get the home, that makes the action one to demand a beneficial lien.

¶ eleven Name 42 O.S.2001, § 19 brings this option who has got a good lien that’s substandard to a different on the same assets has actually a right to redeem the property in the same manner as the holder you’ll, on advanced lien. Brand new Robeys met with the statutory right to receive the property away from A lot of time Coastline. The fresh new Robeys had been awarded injuries of the demonstration judge because the Long Beach got observe it said an effective lien regarding the assets. several O.S.2001, § 764(A)(1). Whenever Enough time Beach don’t offer notice of your foreclosures and you will sales, they averted brand new Robeys regarding redeeming the home. People legal rights is actually legal arising out of the lien this new Robeys had resistant to the assets.

¶ a dozen A lot of time Beach measures up the important points in cases like this in order to Frontier Fed. Sav. and you may Mortgage Ass’n vmercial Lender, 1990 Okay CIV Application 105, 806 P.2d 1140. If so, one or two banking institutions held cards created by a similar borrower. The brand new $30, notice held from the Industrial Bank was protected of the most other industrial paper, that was including from inside the default. Financial institutions by themselves sued new borrower, and after providing wisdom, Commercial Lender marketed the equity in the sheriff’s profit, that have observe so you can Boundary. Boundary objected, however, failed to interest from the verification buy. Frontier upcoming submitted several other step, stating which held a properly-learned shelter need for the newest collateralized industrial papers by advantage off a post-judgment garnishment continuing, and you can found real and you may punitive problems getting losings incurred as a result of Commercial Bank’s officially-unreasonably acts. The newest trial court ruled in support of Commercial Bank, however, denied Commercial’s application for an attorney’s payment significantly less than § 176. The fresh new Legal away from Appeals verified, acknowledging that the fit wasn’t you to impose an excellent lien, one to Boundary Lender indeed had no lien with the collateralized industrial paper. Conversely, new Robeys got an excellent lien for the real property foreclosed of the Much time Coastline.

Very first National Lender, 1970 Okay 162, 475 P

¶ thirteen The fresh new Boundary circumstances cites this Court’s decision generally speaking Digital Credit Corp. v. 2d 137, because the authority for its holding. Generally speaking Electric, the fresh new junior lienholder sued the main debtors. Brand new older lienholder intervened and properly founded the new priority of its lien. The fresh elderly lienholder upcoming made an effort to assemble an enthusiastic attorney’s percentage regarding the brand new junior lienholder. New trial courtroom declined the fee, and therefore Courtroom confirmed, watching that the lienholders hadn’t affirmatively asserted their says facing one another, but instead only contrary to the borrower. Standard Electric, 1970 Ok 162, ¶ 8, 475 P.2d on 138. The new Robeys keeps asserted the claim against Long Coastline, and this distinguishes this situation of Standard Electric.