Appalachian Community Bank loaned approximately $621,000 to DuBarton Enterprises, LLC. DuBarton defaulted on the loan, and Appalachian began foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the Security Deed and Agreement that was executed in conjunction with the loan. DuBarton filed a complaint against Appalachian, alleging negligence and fraud by the bank. DuBarton also moved for an interlocutory injunction, seeking to enjoin the foreclosure. The trial court denied the motion, and DuBarton appeals. “The grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”1 However, “the court’s power to grant an injunction should be prudently and cautiously exercised and, except in clear and urgent cases, should not be resorted to.”2 Moreover, “where there is no conflict in the evidence, the judge’s discretion in granting or denying the interlocutory injunction becomes circumscribed by the applicable rules of law.”3 In this case, the evidence of Appalachian’s right to exercise its power to foreclose is established by the unambiguous terms of the security deed, which plainly gives the bank that right if the loan is not satisfied by the maturity date.4 “It is uncontroverted that the loan was not and never has been satisfied. Thus, Appalachian is merely exercising a right plainly given by the deed which the grantor executed to it.”5
Citing Westpark Walk Owners v. Stewart Holdings ,6 DuBarton argues that it does not have an adequate remedy at law and therefore the trial court erred in failing to prevent the bank from exercising its right to foreclose. However, Westpark is materially different from the instant case and does not mandate a reversal of the trial court’s ruling. Unlike this case, Westpark involved alleged violations of a restrictive covenant and it ultimately affirmed the denial of injunctive relief because “even though irreparable harm may be assumed in a case involving the breach of a real estate covenant, the mere allegation of such a breach does not entitle the movant to an injunction.”7 Not only did Westpark turn on the specific circumstances of the purported breach of a restrictive covenant, but it also did not involve a bank’s clear right to foreclose pursuant to a security deed.
