Commercial Law Keyed to Lopucki
Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York v. Liggett
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Joseph and Mylene Liggett purchased real property located in Manhattan. The following year the property was transferred to Mylene Liggett individually. In February of 1980, Joseph Liggett’s first wife, Helen Liggett prevailed in an action for monies due under their 1970 separation agreement. She then commenced a separate action to enforce her judgment by setting aside the conveyance of the real property located in Manhattan as fraudulent. Between November 1980 and November 1981, Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York, (Petitioner), took successive mortgages on the Manhattan property to secure three loans. In February of 1982, Cosden Oil & Chemical Company, (Respondent), obtained and entered a judgment against Joseph Liggett. By February of 1984, Helen Liggett won partial summary judgment in her action for fraudulent conveyance and the sheriff was directed to sell the property and make distribution out of such proceeds in accordance with CPLR 5236(g). Both Respondent’s and Petitioner’s liens will be wiped out by the sale because they are subordinate to Helen Liggett’s lien. However, a plain reading of the statute suggests that Petitioner cannot share in the proceeds of the sale as a mortgager holder.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.