North Carolina § 45-21 - 38. Deficiency judgments abolished where mortgage represents part of purchase price.

§ 45-21. 38. Deficiency judgments abolished where mortgage represents part of purchase price.

In all sales of real property by mortgagees and/or trustees under powers of sale contained in any mortgage or deed of trust executed after February 6, 1933, or where judgment or decree is given for the foreclosure of any mortgage executed after February 6, 1933, to secure to the seller the payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property, the mortgagee or trustee or holder of the notes secured by such mortgage or deed of trust shall not be entitled to a deficiency judgment on account of such mortgage, deed of trust or obligation secured by the same: Provided, said evidence of indebtedness shows upon the face that it is for balance of purchase money for real estate: Provided, further, that when said note or notes are prepared under the direction and supervision of the seller or sellers, he, it, or they shall cause a provision to be inserted in said note disclosing that it is for purchase money of real estate; in default of which the seller or sellers shall be liable to purchaser for any loss which he might sustain by reason of the failure to insert said provisions as herein set out. History (1933, c. 36; 1949, c. 720, s. 3; c. 856; 1961, c. 604; 1967, c. 562, s. 2.) Cross References. - For provision that spouse need not join in purchase-money mortgage, see G.S. 39-13. Legal Periodicals. - As to the effect of this section, see 11 N.C.L. Rev. 219 (1933). For article, "Transferring North Carolina Real Estate Part I: How the Present System Functions," see 49 N.C.L. Rev. 413 (1971). For survey of 1978 property law, see 57 N.C.L. Rev. 1103 (1979). For note on purchase-money mortgages and suit on the note, see 15 Wake Forest L. Rev. 822 (1979). For note on anti-deficiency judgment statute, see 58 N.C.L. Rev. 855 (1980). For survey of 1980 property law, see 59 N.C.L. Rev. 1209 (1981). For article on installment land contracts in North Carolina, see 3 Campbell L. Rev. 29 (1981). For survey of 1981 property law, see 60 N.C.L. Rev. 1420 (1982). For note discussing North Carolina's Anti-Deficiency Statute and whether suing on the note is a lost option, in light of 313 N.C. 565 , 330 S.E.2d 600 (1985), see 22 Wake Forest L. Rev. 389 (1987). For note, "Real Estate Finance - Subordination Causes: North Carolina Subordinates Substance to Form - MCB Ltd. v. McGowan," 23 Wake Forest L. Rev. 575 (1988). For article, "North Carolina Extends Its Anti-Deficiency Statute: Merritt v. Edwards Ridge," see 67 N.C.L. Rev. 1446 (1989). For article, "Legislative Kudzu and the New Millennium: An Opportunity for Reflection and Reform," see 23 Campbell L. Rev. 157 (2001). For comment, "'A Topsy-Turvy World': High Point Bank & Trust Co. v. Highmark Properties, LLC and the Modern Application of the Fair Market Value Offset Defense," see 95 N.C.L. Rev. 857 (2017).