How do case law and statute differ? Lessons from the evolution of mortgage law

Andra Ghent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper traces the history of mortgage law in the United States. I explore the history of foreclosure procedures, redemption periods, restrictions on deficiency judgments, and foreclosure moratoria. The historical record shows that the most enduring aspects of mortgage law stem from case law rather than statute. In particular, the ability of creditors to foreclose nonjudicially is determined very early in states’ histories, usually before the Civil War, and usually in case law. In contrast, the aspects of mortgage law developed through statute change more frequently. This finding calls into question whether common law is inherently more flexible than the civil-law system used in some other countries. However, case law tends to be less responsive to populist pressures than statutes. My find­ings suggest that the reason common law favors financial development is un­likely to be its greater flexibility relative to law made by statute.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1085-1122
Number of pages38
JournalJournal of Law and Economics
Volume57
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

case law
statute
foreclosure
Law
common law
history of law
civil law
creditor
history
civil war
flexibility
Mortgages
Statute
ability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

How do case law and statute differ? Lessons from the evolution of mortgage law. / Ghent, Andra.

In: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 57, No. 4, 01.11.2015, p. 1085-1122.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2650fb56b9241aa8f861cbb510d20b5,
title = "How do case law and statute differ? Lessons from the evolution of mortgage law",
abstract = "This paper traces the history of mortgage law in the United States. I explore the history of foreclosure procedures, redemption periods, restrictions on deficiency judgments, and foreclosure moratoria. The historical record shows that the most enduring aspects of mortgage law stem from case law rather than statute. In particular, the ability of creditors to foreclose nonjudicially is determined very early in states’ histories, usually before the Civil War, and usually in case law. In contrast, the aspects of mortgage law developed through statute change more frequently. This finding calls into question whether common law is inherently more flexible than the civil-law system used in some other countries. However, case law tends to be less responsive to populist pressures than statutes. My find­ings suggest that the reason common law favors financial development is un­likely to be its greater flexibility relative to law made by statute.",
author = "Andra Ghent",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/680931",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "1085--1122",
journal = "Journal of Law and Economics",
issn = "0022-2186",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do case law and statute differ? Lessons from the evolution of mortgage law

AU - Ghent, Andra

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - This paper traces the history of mortgage law in the United States. I explore the history of foreclosure procedures, redemption periods, restrictions on deficiency judgments, and foreclosure moratoria. The historical record shows that the most enduring aspects of mortgage law stem from case law rather than statute. In particular, the ability of creditors to foreclose nonjudicially is determined very early in states’ histories, usually before the Civil War, and usually in case law. In contrast, the aspects of mortgage law developed through statute change more frequently. This finding calls into question whether common law is inherently more flexible than the civil-law system used in some other countries. However, case law tends to be less responsive to populist pressures than statutes. My find­ings suggest that the reason common law favors financial development is un­likely to be its greater flexibility relative to law made by statute.

AB - This paper traces the history of mortgage law in the United States. I explore the history of foreclosure procedures, redemption periods, restrictions on deficiency judgments, and foreclosure moratoria. The historical record shows that the most enduring aspects of mortgage law stem from case law rather than statute. In particular, the ability of creditors to foreclose nonjudicially is determined very early in states’ histories, usually before the Civil War, and usually in case law. In contrast, the aspects of mortgage law developed through statute change more frequently. This finding calls into question whether common law is inherently more flexible than the civil-law system used in some other countries. However, case law tends to be less responsive to populist pressures than statutes. My find­ings suggest that the reason common law favors financial development is un­likely to be its greater flexibility relative to law made by statute.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84932649490&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84932649490&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/680931

DO - 10.1086/680931

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84932649490

VL - 57

SP - 1085

EP - 1122

JO - Journal of Law and Economics

JF - Journal of Law and Economics

SN - 0022-2186

IS - 4

ER -