dissenting.
I would reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of National City and would remand for further proceedings.
*644Although I agree that the trial court did not necessarily err in refusing to apply the doctrine of equitable subrogation, insofar as that determination rests upon a conclusion that Liberty's predecessor was guilty of "culpable negligence," I believe it to be in error.
The National City mortgage specifically stated that the debt secured was a promissory note in the amount of $35,000. In fact, the only debt then secured was the open line of credit for $35,000. Liberty had every right to rely upon National City's representation that the debt being paid by American Mortgage Co. was the only debt then in existence. That debt was paid by American except as to the de minimus amount of $99.26. This latter amount apparently represents accrued interest for the two day period between quotation of the pay-off figure and National City's receipt of the check from the title company. In my view, Liberty's predecessor was not obligated to inquire whether the Morrises had incurred new additional obligations to National City.
For this reason, I would remand for a determination of the factual as well as the equitable and legal effect of National City's representation as to the nature and amount of the debt secured by the mortgage and whether or not Liberty's predecessor was reasonable in its reliance upon that representation. Depending upon the resolution of these questions, a trier of fact might well find American/Liberty not culpably negligent.