Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Ass'n
Decision Date | 18 December 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 7574,7574 |
Citation | 387 P.2d 801,95 Ariz. 98 |
Parties | ARIZONA COFFEE SHOPS, INC., an Arizona corporation, John Doe 1 through X, Jane Doe 1 through X, Black and White Partnerships, A B & C corporations, Appellants, v. PHOENIX DOWNTOWN PARKING ASSOCIATION, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ira S. Broadman, Phoenix, for appellants.
Fennemore, Craig, Allen & McClennen, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage in which plaintiff obtained summary judgment. Defendant corporation appeals.
This appeal presents the question of whether the trial court may enter summary judgment in a foreclosure action brought about by the failure of the defendant to make a timely interest payment. Our rules rpovide that a summary judgment can be granted only where no genuine issue as to any material fact exists. Ariz. Rules Civ.Proc. 56(c), 16 A.R.S., Sarti v. Udall, 91 Ariz. 24, 369 P.2d 92 (1962). Implicit in the trial court's granting of plaintiff's motion in this case is its view that defendant's affidavit in support of its allegation of unconscionable conduct on the part of the mortgagee was insufficient as a matter of law to create a triable issue of fact.
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment this court will view the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Sarti v. Udall, supra. Defendant, Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc., entered into a contract with plaintiff to purchase two downtown lots for a consideration of $350,000. The agreement, dated December 31, 1957, provided for a cash down payment of $125,000; the balance of $225,000 to be paid in annual installments of $11,250 commencing June 1, 1959, with interest at 5%, payable quarterly. Defendant's indebtedness was evidenced by a promissory note, payment of which was secured by a first mortgage on the two lots. The mortgage contained the usual acceleration provision for default in timely payment of interest or principal. Timely payments of principal and interest on the not were made until March 1, 1961, when due to the illness of its bookkeeper, defendant failed to make its quarterly interest payment of $2,532.
At the time of its admitted default, defendant had paid $173,500 on principal and interest. On April 4, 1961, plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action which the terms of the mortgage authorized it to do. Defendant immediately tendered the overdue interest upon learning of the default and the commencement of proceedings. The tender was rejected.
Defendant contends that in its responsive pleading, and supporting affidavit, it alleged sufficient facts which, if proved, would show unconscionable conduct on the part of the mortgagee, justifying a court of equity to grant relief from the harsh consequences of foreclosure. It is universally held in equity that unconscionalbe conduct of the mortgagee constitutes a valid defense to a mortgage foreclosure. Bisno v. Szx, 174 Cal.App.2d 714, 346 P.2d 814; Lieberbaum v. Surfcomber Hotel Corp., 122 So.2d 28 (Fla.App.,1960); Domus Realty Corp. v. 3443 Realty Co., 179 Misc. 749, 40 N.Y.S.2d 69 (aff'd 266 App.Div. 725, 41 N.Y.S.2d 940). And see Anno., 70 A.L.R. 993.
The facts set forth in the affidavit were, in addition to a recital of the substantial amount of defendant's investment, that after the March interest payment fell due, Irving Fogel, the president of defendant corporation, bought a gift for his wife, who was the corporation's bookkeeper, at a store owned and operated by Walter Switzer, president of the corporate mortgagee. At that time Mr. Fogel spoke with Mr. Switzer and advised him of the illness of Mrs. Fogel. Mr. Switzer made no mention of the fact that the interest payment was over due. Slightly three weeks later he filed suit to foreclose.
The defendant contends the default was inadvertent. The plaintiff had, during the course of the relatively brief duration of the contract, received $173,500 in cash. Nothing in the record indicates that it was in any way prejudiced by the slight delay in making this relatively small quarterly interest payment and the default is entirely out of proportion to the harshness of the plaintiff's action in declaring the entire debt due
A suit to foreclose a mortgage is an equitable action. Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 83 Ariz. 181, 318 P.2d 359. One who seeks equity must do equity. If the defendant can prove bad faith on the part of Mr. Switzer in that he realized that Mrs. Fogel was the bookkeeper, was the person upon whom defendant depended to make sure all payments were made on time, and nevertheless remained silent about the overdue interest payment so that he could pounce upon defendant and take advantage of defendant's situation, a jury might conclude that Mr. Switzer's conduct under the circumstances was so oppressive as to warrant a court of equity the right to deny the affirmative aid sought by the plaintiff.
The court in Domus Realty, supra, where the facts were similar to those of this case, stated:
'Throughout the history of our law it has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...record it is found that any disputed fact issue exists which could, if true, affect the final judgment. Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park. Ass'n, 95 Ariz. 98, 387 P.2d 801; Sarti v. Udall, 91 Ariz. 24, 369 P.2d Elson contends 'that a genuine issue of fact to be tried existed by ......
-
Tucson Estates Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. McGovern
...equity must do equity.’ " See, e.g., Turner, 196 Ariz. 631, ¶ 20, 2 P.3d at 1282, quoting Ariz. Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phx. Downtown Parking Ass'n, 95 Ariz. 98, 100, 387 P.2d 801, 802 (1963) (alteration in Turner ). Typically we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply ......
-
Tiffany Inc. v. W. M. K. Transit Mix, Inc.
...judgment. Elson Development Co. v. Arizona Savings & L. Ass'n, 99 Ariz. 217, 407 P.2d 930 (1965); Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park. Ass'n, 95 Ariz. 98, 387 P.2d 801 (1963); Sarti v. Udall, supra. With this pronouncement in mind, we will review the theories raised by plaintiff w......
-
Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Eastern Illinois Water Co.
...to enforce an acceleration clause in the underlying agreement. For this rule of law defendant cites Arizona Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park Ass'n., 95 Ariz. 98, 387 P.2d 801; Koschorek v. Fischer, Fla.App., 145 So.2d 755; Lieberbaum v. Surfcomber Hotel Corp., Fla.App., 122 So.2d 28; a......
-
AZ Common Law Causes of Action APPENDIX A (2011)
...Servs., Inc., 184 Ariz. 82, 907 P.2d 51 (1995). · One Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity: Ariz. Coffee Shops v. Phoenix Downtown Park. Ass’n, 95 Ariz. 98, 387 P.2d 801 (1963). · Payment: ARIZ. R. CIV. P. 8(c). · Preemption: Coconino County v. Antco, 214 Ariz. 82, 148 P.3d 1155 (App. Div 1, 200......