Blodgett v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 06 May 1916
• Citation: 90 Vt. 269,97 A. 666
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: BLODGETT v. LAWRENCE et ux.

97 A. 666

90 Vt. 269

BLODGETT

v. LAWRENCE et ux.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Caledonia.

May 6, 1916.

Healy, J., dissenting.

Appeal In Chancery, Caledonia County; Fred M. Butler, Chancellor.

Suit by Roy E. Blodgett against Victor V. Lawrence and wife. From a decree in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal. Affirmed and remanded.

The bill seeks to foreclose the defendants' right, title, and interest in the premises therein described. The cause was heard below before the chancellor, who made a finding of facts, and the statement of facts herein conforms thereto. June 14, 1912, the defendant Victor V. executed and delivered to the orator a quitclaim deed, which should be treated in equity as a mortgage, covering the premises described in the bill. The defendant Victoria, wife of Victor, not having joined in this deed, the defendants say it was void, claiming that when it was made the premises constituted their homestead. Ethel S. Lawrence, daughter of the defendants, formerly owned said premises, and on the 13th day of August, 1906, she gave a mortgage to Ephraim Blodgett for $300, as a part of the purchase price of said premises. Upon this, immediately prior to the giving of the quitclaim deed in question, there was due $150. The mortgage was received in evidence without objection. Ephraim Blodgett was dead. The orator was administrator of his estate, and on the 3d day of August, 1912, as such administrator, he discharged said mortgage. August 15, 1908, Ethel S. Lawrence deeded the premises in question to the defendant Victor V., and from that time to January, 1912, the defendants occupied the dwelling house and outbuildings thereon and carried on the farm as their homestead. They had no other real estate. January 20, 1912, the dwelling house on the premises was destroyed by fire and the defendants were compelled to go elsewhere to live. They stored, however, a stove and a portion of their household furniture and clothing in the henhouse and barn, situated on the premises. Afterward in May of the same year they went to Rutland to live. They returned to Waterford, whore the premises in suit are, in March, 1914. April 22, 1912, the defendant Victor V. with the consent and approval of his wife, leased the premises to his brother by a written instrument received in evidence, in the execution of which, the defendant Victoria did not join. This lease was for the period of two years from its date. In the lease, Victor reserved the hay loft in the "old part" of the barn and some old hay was left therein. June 14, 1912, the defendant Victor executed and delivered to the orator a quitclaim deed of the premises described in the bill.

The deed was given to secure the orator for the sum of $000, and at the time of its execution, it was agreed between the orator and the defendant Victor that the latter might redeem the premises for the sum of $600 and interest, at the expiration of the lease hereinbefore mentioned. Subsequently the parties signed a memorandum of this agreement, which was received in evidence without objection. The sum of $600, secured by the quitclaim deed, was made up as follows: The defendant Victor owed the orator a store bill, contracted during the previous year amounting to $165. He agreed to pay, and did pay, a bill owed by Victor V. to another person, amounting to $23. He paid Victor V. $262, and the remaining $150 of the $600 was the amount due on the old mortgage; when the defendant Victor made the lease hereinbefore referred to, the lessee gave him two notes of $75 each as rent, and subsequently Victor turned these notes over to the orator as administrator of Ephraim Blodgett's estate. These notes of the lessee, when paid, were to satisfy the Ethel Lawrence mortgage above referred to, which was then outstanding and unsatisfied to the amount of $150. At the time the quitclaim deed in question was made, the orator surrendered the two notes of the lessee because the balance of $150, secured by the Ethel S. Lawrence mortgage was included in the $600, which the quitclaim deed was given to secure. These notes made by the lessee were surrendered at the request of the defendant Victor V., the orator relying upon said quitclaim deed as his security, and having no knowledge that a homestead was claimed to exist in the premises. The defendants have never paid the orator the $600, or any part thereof, and that amount, at the time the bill was brought and at the time the findings were made by the chancellor, was due and owing from the said defendant Victor V. to the orator.

After moving to Rutland in May, 1912, the defendant Victor worked as a carpenter, and then leased and operated a hotel from November, 1912, to November, 1913. In March, 1914, the defendants returned to Waterford and went into possession of the premises, commenced to grade the cellar, cut timber, and prepared for the rebuilding of the dwelling house thereon, claiming the premises as a homestead. When they returned, they repaired the henhouse, which was a building 12 by 16 feet in size, and built a small addition 10 by 12 feet in size, in which they resided while beginning operations to rebuild. The premises described are what is known as "lease land," with an annual rental of $15.08 reserved to the town of Waterford. At the date of the findings, three years' rent was due and unpaid. Neither at the time of the making of the quitclaim deed, nor after, until the defendants returned to Waterford, did they make any claim to the premises as a homestead to the orator, and the orator had no knowledge, until some time subsequent to their return, that any such claim was to be made.

The $150 note secured by the Ethel S. Lawrence mortgage was never paid to the orator, but was surrendered to Victor V. on the 7th of May, 1914, by the orator at the defendants' request, with the knowledge and approval of Victoria or her solicitors. The orator then relied upon the quitclaim deed as security, but knew that the defendants were claiming a homestead in the premises. The defendant Victor V. intended to...