Brady v. Ford
| Decision Date | 20 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25803. |
| Citation | 184 Wash. 467,52 P.2d 319 |
| Parties | BRADY et al. v. FORD et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Rinald, Judge.
Action to quiet title by Edward Brady and others against Aura B Ford and others. From the judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Longfellow & Fitzpatrick and William Martin, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Carkeek McDonald & Harris, of Seattle, for respondents.
Edward and Leota Brady, plaintiffs herein, are husband and wife. In 1927, to secure a note for $5,800, they executed a mortgage on a contiguous tract of land lying in four government subdivisions. As occasion may call for reference to the property described in the mortgage, we shall refer to it as tracts (a), (b), (c), and (d).
The defendants Ford became the owners of the note and mortgage. In June, 1932, they brought an action on the note and to foreclose the mortgage. The Bradys answered and appeared in person and by attorneys at the trial. Judgment was rendered against them in the sum of $8,996.20, and the mortgaged property ordered sold to satisfy the judgment. No appeal was taken from the judgment.
Upon issuance of execution, the sheriff gave notice of sale to be had on February 4, 1933. On February 2d, the Bradys deeded tracts (a) and (b) to Mr. Brady's brother John Brady, and tract (c) to Helen Brady, his sister. John Brady made demand on the sheriff to sell tracts (a) and (b) as one separate parcel. Helen Brady made a similar demand as to tract (c), and Edward Brady as to tract (d). The sheriff offered the latter tract as a separate parcel. It was bid in by Ford for $2,000. Tracts (a), (b), and (c) were sold as one parcel, Ford bidding it in at $4,000.
Upon objections filed by all the Bradys, the court set the sale aside and ordered a resale, which was noticed for June 3, 1933. Demands were made, as Before , for sale by separate parcels. The sheriff offered the property in separate parcels, resulting in a total bid by Ford, for the entire property, of $6,000. The sheriff then offered all of the mortgaged property in one parcel. Ford bid $6,500. The sheriff accepted the latter bid, issued his certificate of sale, and made his return accordingly. The Bradys all filed written objections, supported by affidavit. Counter affidavits were filed by the Fords. Over the objections of the Bradys, an order of confirmation was entered August 17, 1933. No appeal was taken from that order. Sheriff's deed issued to Ford.
This action was brought by Edward Brady, Leota Brady, his wife, John Brady, and Helen Brady to quiet title to the mortgaged property; to enjoin the sheriff from issuing deed to Ford; and to enjoin Ford from asserting any title to the property described in the mortgage. The action is predicated upon the theory that the resale made by the sheriff, and confirmed by the court, is void.
The defendants in this action pleaded the order of confirmation as res judicata. The trial court sustained the plea and entered judgment dismissing the action. Plaintiffs appeal.
An order of confirmation is a final order, and therefore appealable. Krutz v. Batts, 18 Wash. 460, 51 P. 1054. It is a conclusive determination of the regularity of the sale as to all persons, of whom the court has jurisdiction, in any other action, suit, or proceeding whatever. Where there are no such errors as will oust the court of jurisdiction, the order of confirmation concludes inquiry into any irregularity attending it. Parker v. Dacres, 1 Wash. 190, 24 P. 192; Terry v. Furth, 40 Wash. 493, 82 P. 882; Goshert v. Wirth, 130 Wash. 14, 226 P. 124. In Otis Bros. & Co. v. Nash, 26 Wash. 39, 66 P. 111, 114, this court said:
The issues tendered by the complaint as to the validity of the sale are predicated on the fact that the sheriff finally sold the property en masse, and not in parcels. Appellants contend that they have thereby been deprived...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington
...at 51-52, 954 P.2d 1301. The 20-day period is a mandatory time limit. Van Beek, 135 Wash.2d at 51-52, 954 P.2d 1301; Brady v. Ford, 184 Wash. 467, 470, 52 P.2d 319 (1935). ¶ 31 "[A] judgment creditor or successful purchaser at the sheriff's sale is entitled to an order confirming the sale a......
-
Hazzard v. Westview Golf Club, Inc.
...et al. v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 49 Okl. 496 153 P. 846; Casey v. Smith et al., 36 S.D. 36, 153 N.W. 918; Brady et al. v. Ford et al., 184 Wash. 467, 52 P.2d 319. The confirmation of sale, carried out by execution and delivery of ownership documents to the Bourques, vested the titl......
-
Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...107, 459 P.2d 961 (1969). Moreover, appellant's request for restoration and an accounting are also equitable in nature. Brady v. Ford, 184 Wash. 467, 52 P.2d 319 (1935); Pollock v. Ralston, 5 Wash.2d 36, 104 P.2d 934 (1940). It is therefore clear the instant action presents a mixture of leg......
-
In re Spokane Sav. Bank
...a judicial sale is a final and conclusive judgment to the same extent as any other adjudication of a court of competent jurisdiction. Brady v. Ford, supra. Chapman v. State Bank, Tex.Com.App., 267 S.W. 690; 16 R.C.L. 85,§ 62. After confirmation of a judicial sale the rights of the purchaser......
-
Table of Cases
...19 Wn.2d 134, 142 P.2d 250 (1943): 17.7(4)(a) Brace & Hergert Mill Co. v. State, 49 Wash. 326, 95 P. 278 (1908): 13.6(4) Brady v. Ford, 184 Wash. 467, 52 P.2d 319 (1935): 20.14(8) Braman v. Kuper, 51 Wn.2d 676, 321 P.2d 275 (1958): 20.14(8)(e) Brand v. Lienkaemper, 72 Wash. 547, 130 P. 1147......
-
§20.14 - Mortgage Foreclosures
...378, 53 P. 342 (1898). Normally it is discretionary with the sheriff or trial court to order sale in parcels or en masse. Brady v. Ford, 184 Wash. 467, 52 P.2d 319 (1935). If any portion of the property is claimed by a third person, however, that person may force the sheriff to sell that po......