In order to finance construction of a new, 52,000-seat stadium, the owner of a baseball team borrowed $25,000,000 from a trust company, which secured the debt with a first mortgage on the facility. The trust company recorded the mortgage as required by statute. However, despite the new, state-of-the-art stadium, the team played miserably and finished in last place. On account of their last place finish, the team had the lowest attendance in the league, averaging only 6,500 fans per game.
In an attempt to recoup his losses due to the low attendance, the owner negotiated a contract with a professional football team to allow them to play their league games at the stadium. However, adapting the stadium for football games required the owner to enlarge the playing field and remove 1,000 seats, which had been affixed into the concrete infrastructure of the stadium, from the centerfield bleacher area. When the trust company learned about the owner's plans, it objected to the removal of the 1,000 seats, claiming that it would impair the value of its security interest in the stadium.
If the trust company brings suit against the owner to enjoin the proposed removal of the 1,000 seats at the stadium, judgment should be for whom?