Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mortg. Co., 19065
| Decision Date | 19 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19065,19065 |
| Citation | 145 Colo. 36,357 P.2d 919 |
| Parties | Max D. HASTINGS and Lulu Mae Hastings, Plaintiffs in Error, v. SECURITY THRIFT & MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, and Ben H. Tyler, Public Trustee of the County of Adams, State of Colorado, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William Pehr, Westminster, for plaintiffs in error.
Quiat, Seeman & Quiat, L. A. Hellerstein, William F. Schenkein, Denver, for defendants in error.
We will refer to plaintiffs in error as the Hastings; to defendant in error Security Thrift & Mortgage Company as Security, and to Ben H. Tyler as Public Trustee. The record and stipulated facts disclose that Security held a deed of trust on certain real estate in Adams County, Colorado to secure an indebtedness of the Hastings. The deed of trust being in default, Security filed in the Denver District Court a motion under Rule 120 R.C.P.Colo. to authorize the Public Trustee of Adams County to sell the real estate, alleging that all interested parties 'are not in, or have not been ordered to report for induction' in the military service of the United States, or of any nation with which the United States was or may be allied in the prosecution of any war in which the United States was or is engaged; that the interested parties are gainfully employed in civilian pursuits. The usual order was prayed for.
Notices were issued and mailed, whereupon the Hatings filed a motion to change the venue of the District court proceeding to Adams County. The motion was overruled and an order authorizing the Public Trustee to proceed with the sale of the real estate was entered. The property was sold and a Public Trustee's deed issued. The Hastings are here by writ of error, asserting that the proceedings under Rule 120 are governed by Rule 98(a) R.C.P.Colo. respecting venue.
In the agreed statement of facts it appears that neither of the Hastings were or had been in the military service. Rule 120 provides:
'Whenever by law an order of court is required authorizing a sale under a power of sale contained in an instrument, any interested person may file a motion verified by the oath of such person or of someone in his behalf, in any court of record asking for such order; such motion shall describe * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
It is manifest from the language of the rule that the Denver district court was authorized to enter the order directing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Denver v. District Court, El Paso County, Colorado, Div. 5, 82SA148
...We need not now decide the proper rule for venue for an action to replevy a mobile home. See C.R.C.P. 98; Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mortgage Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960) (location of the property need not control venue for foreclosure purposes). However, it appears that the pl......
-
Moreland v. Marwich, Ltd.
... ... The bank demanded further security for the loans and offered to accept a lien on the ... See Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mortgage Co., 145 Colo. 36, ... ...
- O'Brien v. Village Land Co., 89SC241
-
Princeville Corp. v. Brooks
...enacted Federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, now 50 U.S.C. App. § 501 et seq. See Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mortgage Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960); Whitaker v. Hearnsberger, 123 Colo. 545, 233 P.2d 389 The broad purpose of the Act was to avoid prejudice to t......
-
RULE 98
...that foreclosure proceedings be filed in the county where the property affected is located. Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mtg. Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960). An action to recover the reasonable value of furniture, fixtures, and equipment of a restaurant and liquor sales business so......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...court determines issues and enters a final judgment, and no appeal may be taken to review the same. Hastings v. Sec. Thrift & Mtg. Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960). Nor an order on motion to vacate a judgment. An order overruling a motion to vacate a judgment is not final in the sense......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...that foreclosure proceedings be filed in the county where the property affected is located. Hastings v. Security Thrift & Mtg. Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960). An action to recover the reasonable value of furniture, fixtures, and equipment of a restaurant and liquor sales business so......
-
Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.
...court determines issues and enters a final judgment, and no appeal may be taken to review the same. Hastings v. Sec. Thrift & Mtg. Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960). Nor an order on motion to vacate a judgment. An order overruling a motion to vacate a judgment is not final in the sense......