The appellant made three submissions before this court. First, it claimed that the respondent improperly relinquished possession of the property because a mortgagee in possession cannot relinquish possession without an order of the court. The appellant cited no authority for this proposition other than Prytherch, Re (1889), 42 Ch. D. 590, and Lusk v. Perrin (1920), 19 O.W.N. 58 (H.C.). To the extent that these cases are applicable to this appeal, however, they establish only that a mortgagee in possession has to account for the period of its occupation upon giving up possession. The appellant's first submission, therefore, is unsupported.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.