This is an appeal by mortgagors (defendants) from a summary judgment against them in an action to foreclose two second mortgages on their premises used as a residence. Each mortgage covered a separate tract.
The mortgages were given as additional collateral in connection with a purchase of a used Cadillac automobile by defendants from Whelan Pontiac-Buick, Inc. (seller). The latter had arranged financing of the purchase with plaintiff on behalf of defendants. Plaintiff would not finance the sale without the additional security of the second mortgages.
Defendants executed an installment sale and security agreement (agreement) with the seller. The total "time balance" due under the agreement, including insurance premium advances and the finance charges, was $5,888.64. The collateral specified therein was the automobile and "Recorded Mortgage Against Real Estate." A promissory note in the sum of $5,888.64, payable in monthly installments, with an acceleration clause, was executed by defendants with plaintiff as payee. Two real estate mortgages, the second mortgages here involved, were executed by defendants in favor of plaintiff as additional security for the note. All of the seller's rights in the agreement were assigned to plaintiff. Defendants acknowledged in writing at the time of execution of all of the documents that their payments were $122.68 a month for 48 months for which "we are signing a mortgage to be recorded as security."
The only defenses were that the "transaction was usurious in that the amount of interest charged was above the legal
limits as delineated in N.J.S.A. 17:11A-44(a)" and the "second mortgage note" did not comply with N.J.S.A. 17:11A-51(a) and (c).*fn1 These provisions are contained in the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act, N.J.S.A. 17:11A-34 et seq. (L. 1970, c. 205).
Admittedly, the transaction complied with the provisions of the Retail Installment Sales Act of 1960, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 to 61, as amended. The only question presented below and on appeal is whether the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act is applicable to the transaction. We concur in the trial judge's conclusion that it is not, and affirm.
The transaction involves the financing of an automobile purchase, a bona fide sale, and not a loan subject to the provisions of the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act. The issue before us is governed by Public Acceptance Corp. v. Taylor , 127 N.J. Super. 323 (App. Div. 1974), and Girard Acceptance Corp. v. Boyle , 109 N.J. Super. 317, 324 (App. Div. 1970). See also, Sliger v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. , 59 N.J. 465 (1971); Steffenauer v. Mytelka and Rose, Inc. 46 N.J. 299 (1966).
Permitting a second mortgage on real property as additional collateral for the financing of a sale of an automobile is not one of the evils at which the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act was directed. See City Consumer Services v. Banking Dept. , 134 N.J. Super. 588 (App. Div. 1975), certif. den. 69 N.J. 73 (1975); Crescent Invest. Co. v. Comm. of Bank. & Ins. of N.J. , 103 N.J. Super. 11, 18 (Ch. Div. 1968).
We are satisfied that the Legislature intended that the retail installment sale before us be regulated by the protective provisions of the Retail Installment Sales Act. The giving of additional collateral by way of a second mortgage on real property in connection with the financing of such
a sale does not make the Secondary Mortgage Loan ...