acceleration clause (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

acceleration clause in Wisconsin

7 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 1929–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. American Medical Services, Inc.green
wis · 1974 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976In Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Asso. v. American Medical Services (1974), 66 Wis. 2d 210, 216, 217 , 223 N. W. 2d 921 , we stated: “While the Wire Works Case apparently viewed an acceleration clause as related to preservation of the security of the mortgage holder, the decision does not make proof of actual impairment of security a condition precedent to a foreclosure under the ‘due on sale’ clause. *538 However, an absence of impairment of security is a factor that a trial court may put on the scales in weighing the equities involved.” In Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Asso. v. American Medi

1976In Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Asso. v. American Medical Services (1974), 66 Wis. 2d 210, 216, 217 , 223 N. W. 2d 921 , we stated: “While the Wire Works Case apparently viewed an acceleration clause as related to preservation of the security of the mortgage holder, the decision does not make proof of actual impairment of security a condition precedent to a foreclosure under the ‘due on sale’ clause. *538 However, an absence of impairment of security is a factor that a trial court may put on the scales in weighing the equities involved.” In Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Asso. v. American Medi

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Gullotta green
ohio · 2008
2 sentences

2018The general rule that each missed payment in an installment loan gives rise to a separate cause of action does not hold true when there is an acceleration clause in the loan agreement[.] Gullotta, 899 N.E.2d 987, ¶29 . ¶44 Neither Thompson's arguments nor these cases upon which Thompson relies are persuasive in deciding the instant case in Thompson's favor.

2018The general rule that each missed payment in an installment loan gives rise to a separate cause of action does not hold true when there is an acceleration clause in the loan agreement[.] Gullotta , 899 N.E.2d 987 , ¶ 29. ¶ 44 Neither Thompson's arguments nor these cases upon which Thompson relies are persuasive in deciding the instant case in Thompson's favor.

22018–2018
Pollard v. Tobin neutral
wis · 1933
2 sentences

1934Plaintiffs start with the assumption that the bonds here involved are negotiable instruments; that bonds identical in form and secured by a trust deed containing similar provisions were held negotiable by this court in the recent case of Pollard v. Tobin, 211 Wis. 405 , 247 N. W. 453 .

1934Plaintiffs start with the assumption that the bonds here involved are negotiable instruments; that bonds identical in form and secured by a trust deed containing similar provisions were held negotiable by this court in the recent case of Pollard v. Tobin, 211 Wis. 405 , 247 N. W. 453 .

11934–1934
Thorp v. Mindeman green
· 1904
2 sentences

1934Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149 , 101 N. W. 417 .

1934Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149 , 101 N. W. 417 .

11934–1934
Miles v. Hamilton green
kan · 1920
2 sentences

1933R. 276, 106 Kan. 804 , 189 Pac. 926 , it was held under a like clause that default of payment of interest when due rendered a note due at the time of the default and a subsequent payment of interest and a part of the principal did not postpone the due date to the date of original maturity or a new default.

1933R. 276, 106 Kan. 804 , 189 Pac. 926 , it was held under a like clause that default of payment of interest when due rendered a note due at the time of the default and a subsequent payment of interest and a part of the principal did not postpone the due date to the date of original maturity or a new default.

11933–1933
Fant v. Thomas green
va · 1921
2 sentences

1933R. 280, 131 Va. 38 , 108 S. E. 847 , holds that under an acceleration clause in a mortgage similar to the clause here involved, acceptance of interest after default in payment waived the right to treat the principal sum as due, in the case reported in the volume next preceding the Fant Case, Miles v. Hamilton, 19 A. L.

1933R. 280, 131 Va. 38 , 108 S. E. 847 , holds that under an acceleration clause in a mortgage similar to the clause here involved, acceptance of interest after default in payment waived the right to treat the principal sum as due, in the case reported in the volume next preceding the Fant Case, Miles v. Hamilton, 19 A. L.

11933–1933
Winne v. Lahart green
minn · 1923
2 sentences

1929The cases of Winne v. Lahart, 155 Minn. 307 , 193 N. W. 587 , and Baird v. Meyer, 55 N. Dak. 930, 215 N. W. 542 , support the proposition.

1929The cases of Winne v. Lahart, 155 Minn. 307 , 193 N. W. 587 , and Baird v. Meyer, 55 N. Dak. 930, 215 N. W. 542 , support the proposition.

11929–1929
Schoonmaker v. Taylor neutral
wis · 1861
1 sentence

1929The case of Schoonmaker v. Taylor, 14 Wis. 313 , holds that they should be so construed, and upheld a complaint for foreclosure alleging that the whole debt was due by reason of an acceleration clause in the mortgage.

11929–1929
Baird v. Meyer green
nd · 1927
1 sentence

1929The cases of Winne v. Lahart, 155 Minn. 307 , 193 N. W. 587 , and Baird v. Meyer, 55 N. Dak. 930, 215 N. W. 542 , support the proposition.

11929–1929

Where else courts name it

NY 100 (1910–2025) TX 54 (1925–2025) CA 45 (1927–2025) FL 44 (1927–2024) GA 34 (1934–2003) MI 33 (1930–2025) PA 24 (1928–2019) LA 23 (1933–2025) IL 22 (1904–2025) OH 22 (1912–2017) MA 21 (1956–2022) NJ 19 (1929–2024) IA 17 (1925–2022) AZ 16 (1969–2022) KS 16 (1915–2022) OK 15 (1936–2024) MO 14 (1927–2016) IN 13 (1936–2020) TN 13 (1915–2018) CT 12 (1933–2002) AR 11 (1924–1982) AL 11 (1929–2017) CO 10 (1954–2020) NC 10 (1948–2024) MD 10 (1954–2002) WA 10 (1929–2026) ND 10 (1918–1997) VA 9 (1919–2025) MS 9 (1955–2021) ME 8 (1973–2024) MN 7 (1924–1986) WI 7 (1929–2018) NM 7 (1941–2024) OR 7 (1919–1999) NE 7 (1926–2022) UT 7 (1935–2019) SD 6 (1927–1982) DE 6 (1930–2017) RI 4 (1974–2018) ID 3 (1922–1988) KY 3 (1937–1998) VT 3 (1993–2005) MT 3 (1923–1962) HI 3 (1997–2013) SC 2 (1940–1984) WY 2 (1933–1981)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check