Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Olson

• Decision Date: 13 January 1942
• Citation: 239 Wis. 448,1 N.W.2d 752
• Parties: FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL v. OLSON et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

239 Wis. 448

1 N.W.2d 752

FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL

v.OLSON et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 13, 1942.

Appeal from orders of the Circuit Court for Portage County; Herman J. Severson, Judge.

Action by the Federal Land Bank of St. Paul against Otis A. Olson and others, and C. H. Simpson and others, trustces for segregated assets of International Bank of Amherst, for foreclosure of a mortgage. From orders after judgment confirming a foreclosure sale and denying their motion to vacate the judgment as to them, last named defendants appeal.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Affirmed.

Foreclosure. The appellants Simpson et al. appeal from two orders made by the circuit court after judgment, one dated January 25, 1941, confirming a mortgage foreclosure sale, and the other, dated March 21, 1941, denying appellants' motion to vacate the judgment as to them.

The facts out of which the controversy arises are as follows: The summons and complaint were personally served upon the appellants, holders of a junior mortgage, who retained Messrs. Fisher, Cashin and Reinholdt to represent them. Fisher, Cashin & Reinholdt served a notice of retainer and appearance on March 29, 1939, but did not appear in any other way in the action. Plaintiff made application for judgment on April 29, 1939. No notice of application for judgment was given the appellants except that it appears that an attempted service of the notice by mail was made. It appears that the attorneys for the plaintiff and for the appellants reside in the same place. Judgment of foreclosure was rendered on plaintiff's application on April 29, 1939, in the sum of $8,536.80. The attorneys for appellants learned on the 10th day of May, 1940, that judgment had been entered. They made no effort to have the same vacated or to secure relief in any other way until the 23rd day of November, 1940, which was after the sale of the premises had taken place and motion for confirmation of sale was before the court, the sale having been made on the 9th day of November, 1940. Plaintiff's attorneys knew of this sale prior to the time it was made. The judgment provided that the premises should be sold as a whole. Upon the hearing on the motion to confirm the sale, counsel for appellants moved orally that the judgment be vacated and set aside as to them for the reason that notice of application for the judgment had not been given to them or either of them or to their attorneys. No formal order denying the motion to vacate the judgment was made at the time the order confirming the sale was entered on January 25, 1941, but one was made on March 21, 1941, as already stated. In its decision upon the motion to confirm the sale, the court made the following findings, which are briefly stated: The defendants were retained, among other things, to oppose a sale of the mortgaged premises otherwise than in parcels; that the appealing defendants did not have the legal notice required prior to the taking of the judgment but they in fact knew of the entry of the judgment on the 10th day of May, 1940; that they had notice of the fact that the premises were advertised to be sold prior to the sale. “There is no proof submitted by these defendants that it would be of any advantage to them to have these premises sold in parcels or to have the homestead sold last. There is no contention made herein that these premises did not bring at said sale the full market value. There is no claim made that if the sale was vacated and this judgment set aside that these defendants could be benefitted a single penny, or any claim made that their equity herein has any value whatsoever. The proof is overwhelming, however, that the plaintiff bid in these premises at the sheriff's sale for more than their market value and has contracted for a re-sale of these premises for the sum of $5500.00, which is $3080.47 less than the purchase price paid therefor.”

Fisher, Cashin & Reinholdt, of Stevens Point, for appellants.

W. E. Atwell, of Stevens Point (John Thorpe, Robert J. Barry, and Harold W. Lee, all of St. Paul, Minn., of counsel), for respondent.

ROSENBERRY, Chief Justice.

The material part of sec. 270.62(2), Stats.1939, is as follows: “270.62 * * * (2) In other actions [actions other than contract] including all actions founded upon, or sounding in tort, the plaintiff may, upon the like proof, apply to the court for judgment according to the demand of the complaint. * * * If the defendant shall have appeared in the action he shall be entitled to eight days' notice of such application for judgment.”

It is conceded that this provision is not modified by sec. 281.209(3), Stats.1939, which by its terms requires notice of application for judgment to be served upon defendants against whom a deficiency judgment is demanded and upon defendants in possession of the mortgaged property whether they have appeared or not. It is conceded that the appealing defendants were entitled to notice; that they did not receive formal notice. Failure to give the notice, however, is an irregularity and is not jurisdictional. Lindauer v. Clifford, 1878, 44 Wis. 597;Rollins v. Kahn, 1886, 66 Wis. 658, 29 N.W. 640.

The question for consideration and decision here is whether the appellants are entitled to have the judgment vacated as a matter of right, although it clearly and conclusively appears as found by the trial court that they are in no way injured and have suffered no loss by reason of the fact that due notice was not given. The appellants have not even claimed that the premises could have been sold for more than the amount for which they were bid in at the foreclosure sale however, sold whether in parcels or as a whole, whether the homestead was sold separately or in connection with the remainder of the farm. What appellants seek to do is to vindicate a barren legal right without any showing of injury.

In Warren v. Foreman, 1865, 19 Wis. 35, there was a motion to set aside a judgment by default or to have it modified so as to direct a sale in parcels and for disposition of the proceeds etc. The Court said: “The appellant shows no special equity to have had the land covered by the Bostwick mortgage sold first; and I think he shows no other sufficient ground for...