Federal Farm Mortg. Corp. v. Schmidt, 14849.
Decision Date | 18 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 14849. |
Citation | 126 P.2d 1036,109 Colo. 467 |
Parties | FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. SCHMIDT. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Yuma County; H. E. Munson, Judge.
Action by Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation against Ludwig C Schmidt for declaratory judgment to determine marketability of title to certain real property. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
M. M. Bulkeley, of Wray, and W. E. Pepperell Conrad L. Ball, J. P. Flinn, and Edward H. Jamison, all of Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Golding Fairfield, I. L. Quiat, and Percy S. Morris, all of Denver amici curiae.
We here are concerned with a controversy culminating in an action brought under the Declaratory Judgments Act by the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, to determine the marketability of the title to a certain tract of real estate. For convenience, we refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff sold the real estate to defendant under an agreement to deliver to him an abstract showing marketable title in plaintiff. The sole question presented is the effect of sections 146 to 151, inclusive, chapter 40 '35 C.S.A., upon the title in question, so as to render it marketable. It is admitted that without the benefit of these sections the title would not be marketable. There is no dispute over the facts. The trial court held the effect of said sections to be adverse to the contentions of counsel for plaintiff and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff is here seeking reversal on writ of error. Defendant makes no appearance. Amici curiae, favoring the marketability of the title, have filed a brief in support of that position. They claim no personal interest in the result of the litigation, but assert that an affirmance of the judgment would render unmarketable titles to thousands of parcels of real estate in this state which have been passed as marketable in reliance upon said sections.
The rule with reference to marketable titles is stated in Thompson on Real Property, vol. 5, page 407, section 4296, as follows: See, also, 66 C.J., p. 862, § 534.
What does the abstract show as to plaintiff's title? It discloses that in June, 1888, one George Collins was the owner and holder of the record fee-simple title to the property. On the 7th day of that month Collins and his wife, Mattie E. Collins, made, executed and delivered to one Elizabeth P. Avery a certain real estate mortgage conveying the property to the mortgagee as security for the payment of an indebtedness described in the mortgage. This mortgage was properly recorded in the office of the county clerk and recorder. Thereafter, Collins and his wife made, executed and delivered to one George E. Clark a second real estate mortgage covering the same property, which mortgage also was recorded in the office of the county clerk and recorder. After the execution of both of these mortgages and on the 16th day of June, 1888, Collins and his wife sold the property and made, executed and delivered a warranty deed transferring it to one Charles F. Frank, which warranty deed was duly recorded in the proper office. Thereafter, and in July, 1893, Elizabeth P. Avery, the mortgagee in the first real estate mortgage, instituted an action in the county court of Yuma County, Colorado, to foreclose her mortgage, and November 3, 1893, a judgment and decree was duly entered in said action in her favor foreclosing her mortgage and directing sale of the property by the sheriff of Yuma county. The sale was held December 11, 1893, and the property bid in by Avery, who received a certificate of purchase and caused the same to be recorded on the county records January 9, 1894. After the period of redemption had expired, and on September 27, 1894, the sheriff of Yuma county made, executed and delivered to Elizabeth P. Avery a sheriff's deed to the property, which was placed on record October 1, 1894, and since that date has so remained of record.
In the foreclosure action brought by Avery, personal service of summons was made upon defendant Clark, who was the holder of the second real estate mortgage on the property. Constructive service of summons on defendants George Collins and Mattie E. Collins, the mortgagors, and Charles F. Frank the record owner of the property at the time the foreclosure action was instituted, was attempted by Avery, but the affidavit for service by publication was fatally defective in that it did not state the post office addresses of the parties defendant sought to be served, nor did it state that the addresses of these parties were unknown to the affiant; there was, therefore, no valid service upon the mortgagor and record owner of the property at the time the action was brought, and this defect was fatal to the validity of the decree entered in the foreclosure suit.
The title to the property since the execution and delivery of the sheriff's deed is free from objection and runs in a regular unbroken chain from Avery, the grantee in the sheriff's deed, to the plaintiff. All of the respective conveyances were made by warranty deeds, regular in form, properly executed and acknowledged, and properly recorded in the office of the county clerk and recorder of Yuma county, Colorado.
Defendant claiming that the title was not marketable because of the failure of service upon the record owner in the foreclosure action in 1893, refused to accept the deed because of this alleged defect in title. Counsel for plaintiff contend that, irrespective of failure of the service mentioned, the title is marketable by reason of sections 146 to 151, supra. In the solution of this controversy we primarily are concerned with section 146, which reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rael v. Taylor
...(1954)); Bray v. Germain Investment Company, 105 Colo. 403, 407, 98 P.2d 993, 995 (1940). See also Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Schmidt, 109 Colo. 467, 470-71, 126 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1942) (mortgagee's failure to state in affidavit for publication notice filed in foreclosure action the addr......
-
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 6178.
...Life Insurance Co., 60 Kan. 134, 55 P. 844; Olinda Irrigated Lands Co. v. Yank, 27 Cal.App.2d 56, 80 P.2d 170; Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Schmidt, 109 Colo. 467, 126 P.2d 1036; People v. Grant, 52 Cal.App.2d 794, 127 P.2d 19; Greenley v. Lilly, 155 Kan. 653, 127 P.2d 416; Boettcher v. C......
-
Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Woody Creek Ventures, LLC
...with knowledge of all the facts and their legal bearing would be willing to accept.” Id. at 1225 (quoting Fed. Farm Mortg. Corp. v. Schmidt , 109 Colo. 467, 126 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1942) ).The Knight court further characterized a marketable title as one that is “reasonably certain [not to] be ......
-
Markus v. Brohl
...creates a disincentive for buyers of credits, contrary to the apparent purpose of the statute. Cf. Fed. Farm Mortg. Corp. v. Schmidt, 109 Colo. 467, 473, 126 P.2d 1036, 1039 (1942) (construing a statute of limitations to further the goal of making title to property safe, secure, and marketa......
-
The Colorado Recording Act, Part Ii: Notice Under the Recording Act
...recorded, regardless of actual notice). 43. Yates v. Hurd, 8 Colo. 343, 8 Pac. 575 (1885); Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation v. Schmidt, 126 P.2d 1036 (Colo. 1942); Cook v. Hargis, 435 P.2d 365 (Colo. 1967). 44. Jerome v. Carbonate Nat. Bank of Leadville, 22 Colo. 37, 43 Pac. 215 (1895). 45......
-
CHAPTER 5 TITLE TO MINING PROPERTIES
...L. Rev. 397 (1955) and 2 Rocky Mtn. Min. Law Foundation, American Law of Mining §11.2 (1976). [2] Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Schmidt, 109 Colo. 467, 126 P.2d 1036 (1942); Martz, Survey of Title Irregularities, Curative Statutes and Title Standards in Colorado, 35 Colo. L. R. 21 (1962). ......
-
Real Estate Title Standards of the Colorado Bar Association
..._____________________ Footnotes: 1. Price v. Immel, 48 Colo. 163, 109 P. 941, 945 (1910). 2. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Schmidt, 109 Colo. 467, 126 P.2d 1036, 1038 (1942). 3. White v. Evans, 120 Colo. 200, 208 P.2d 922, 926 (1949). 4. The 1987 Revised Title Standards have been printed b......
-
Water Rights Title and Conveyancing
...under "Ground Water," infra. 35. CRS § 37-92-101 et seq. 36. See generally CRS Title 38. 37. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Schmidt, 126 P.2d 1036, 1037 (Colo. 1942), quoting 5 Thompson on Real Property, 407, § 4296. 38. Upton v. Griffitts, 831 P.2d 504, 505 (Colo.App. 1992). 39. CRS § 38-3......