From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bermuda Trust Co. Ltd. v. Ameropan Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

recognizing that a volunteer who pays is not entitled to subrogation

Summary of this case from Astra Oil Trading Nv v. Prsi Trading Co. Lp

Opinion

Argued September 10, 1999

November 8, 1999

Cooper, Brown Behrle, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Sandra Gale Behrle of counsel), for appellant.

Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Thomas J. McNamara and Andrew M. Roth of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover sums paid to a creditor of the defendant under a guarantee, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 5, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the doctrine of equitable subrogation, "`[w]here property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lienholder'" (King v. Pelkofski, 20 N.Y.2d 326, 333 , quoting Restatement, Restitution, § 162; see also, Great E. Bank v. Chang, 227 A.D.2d 589, 590 ; Wagner v. Maenza, 223 A.D.2d 640 ; Zeidel v. Dunne, 215 A.D.2d 472 ;Cohn v. Rothman-Goodman Mgt. Corp., 155 A.D.2d 579, 580 ). However, equitable subrogation is unavailable if payments are made voluntarily (see, Cohn v. Rothman-Goodman Mgt. Corp., supra; In re Wingspread Corp., 116 B.R. 915, 928 ; Restatement, Restitution, § 162, comment b; 23 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contribution, Indemnity and Subrogation, §§ 31, 32).

The Supreme Court correctly found that the subject guarantee was signed by the Bermuda Trust Company Limited in its corporate capacity and not in its capacity as the trustee of the Cinq Trust. Thus, the Cinq Trust had no legal obligation to pay the defendant's debts. Any payments it made on the defendant's behalf were voluntary, and equitable subrogation is unavailable.

The plaintiff's remaining cause of action was properly dismissed for lack of standing to assert it.

SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, FRIEDMANN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bermuda Trust Co. Ltd. v. Ameropan Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

recognizing that a volunteer who pays is not entitled to subrogation

Summary of this case from Astra Oil Trading Nv v. Prsi Trading Co. Lp
Case details for

Bermuda Trust Co. Ltd. v. Ameropan Oil Corp.

Case Details

Full title:BERMUDA TRUST COMPANY LIMITED, etc., appellant, v. AMEROPAN OIL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 8, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 691

Citing Cases

Broadway Houston Mack Development, LLC v. Kohl

The equitable doctrine of subrogation "is `applicable to cases where a party is compelled to pay the debt of…

Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.

The equitable doctrine of subrogation "is 'applicable to cases where a party is compelled to pay the debt of…