Holdsworth v. Key, KCD
| Decision Date | 03 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | James T. HOLDSWORTH and Cara S. Holdsworth, Appellants, v. Dudley KEY and Ula Key, Respondents. 27137. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ward B. Stuckey, Kansas City, for appellants.
William E. Turnage, Liberty, for respondents; Sevier & Turnage, Liberty, of counsel.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and SWOFFORD, J.
This is an action for conversion of a crop of corn. The facts are simple and are not disputed. On February 16, 1971, the plaintiffs executed a deed of trust on a tract of land owned by them. Subsequent to the execution of the deed of trust, plaintiffs planted and cultivated a crop of corn on this tract of land. On June 19, 1972, plaintiffs contracted to sell the crop of corn to a third party, delivery to be made in the fall. On June 30, 1972, the trustee named in the deed of trust conducted a foreclosure sale pursuant to the power of sale granted by the plaintiffs in the deed of trust. At said sale the defendants were the successful bidders and they received a trustee's deed to this tract of land. At the time of the foreclosure sale the crop of corn was still growing on this tract of land and had not been actually severed from the ground. Defendants took possession of this tract of land and later harvested the crop of corn.
In the court below plaintiffs claimed that the contract for the sale of the crop of corn executed on June 19, 1972, constituted a 'constructive severance' of the crop of corn from the ground, and thereby relieved the crop of corn from the lien of the deed of trust. They claimed that as a consequence the defendants acquired no right to the crop of corn at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants converted the crop of corn when they subsequently went upon the tract of land and reaped it. After defendants request for admissions had been filed and duly answered, they filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing of the motion for summary judgment, counsel for plaintiffs agreed that there existed no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the question to be decided was strictly a question of law, namely, whether the contract for the sale of the crop of corn constituted a constructive severance of the crop of corn from the ground, and whether such a constructive severance relieved the crop of corn of the lien of the deed of trust. Defendants contended that the only way the crop of corn could be relieved of the lien of the deed of trust was by an actual severance of the crop of corn from the ground. The trial court decided the question of law in favor of defendants, and sustained defendants' motion for summary judgment.
In Missouri, it is a settled legal principle of long-standing that unless otherwise provided in the deed of trust, unsevered crops standing on mortgaged land at the time of a foreclosure sale are subject to the lien of the deed of trust and pass to the purchaser of the land at the foreclosure sale. Hayden v. Burkemper, 101 Mo. 644, 14 S.W. 767 (1890); Farmers' Bank of Hickory v. Bradley, 315 Mo. 811, 288 S.W. 774 (banc 1926). The only way a growing crop can be relieved of the lien of a deed of trust is by an actual severance of the crop from the ground prior to the foreclosure sale. If it is so relieved of the lien of a deed of trust it does not pass to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. Farmers' Bank of Hickory v. Bradley, supra; Glenn on Mortgages, § 202.1, p. 1022.
Acknowledging such to be Missouri law, the plaintiffs argue that the contract for the sale of the crop of corn executed on June 19, 1972, constituted a 'constructive severance' of the crop of corn from the land and that this should have the same legal effect upon the lien of the deed of trust as would an actual severance. The point must be ruled adversely to plaintiffs because of what was said by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc in the cases of Farmers' Bank of Hickory v. Bradley, supra, and H. J. Starkey v. D. R. Powell, 315 Mo. 846, 288 S.W. 776 (banc 1926).
The pertinent facts in Starkey are identical to those in the instant case: Two owners of a tract of land executed a deed of trust covering the land; thereafter, they planted and cultivated a crop of corn on it and sold the crop of corn to a third p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pettijohn
...of both the United States and Missouri Constitutions. If such a claim is again asserted, the parties may well consult Holdsworth v. Key, 520 S.W.2d 637, 640 (Mo.App.1975), which makes it clear that the duty of this court is to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court which ......
-
U.S. v. Newcomb
...applying the provisions of Article 9 of the UCC, as adopted in Missouri, 3 instead of Missouri real estate law, citing Holdsworth v. Key, 520 S.W.2d 637 (Mo.Ct.App.1975). Newcomb argues that the district court erroneously viewed the case as one involving conflicting Article 9 security inter......
-
Fletcher v. Stillman, 20462
...ready for harvest even though they had not yet been severed. The trial court concluded that it was bound by the case of Holdsworth v. Key, 520 S.W.2d 637 (Mo.App.1975), and found for Plaintiffs. This appeal followed. Holdsworth contains this language: "In Missouri, it is a settled legal pri......
-
In re Temple Stephens Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 92-20576-2-11.
...owner of the land, provided said crops were not severed before the holder of the deed of trust went into possession. See Holdsworth v. Key, 520 S.W.2d 637 (Mo.Ct.App.) 1975. Also cases going back to 1890 as in Hayden v. Burkemper, 101 Mo. 644, 14 S.W. 767 (1890) and as late as 1926 as in Fa......