Koontz v. Butler

• Citation: 238 Ky. 406
• Parties: Koontz v. Butler et al.
• Decision Date: 21 April 1931
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

238 Ky. 406

Koontz v. Butler et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided April 21, 1931.

1. Judgment. — To be valid, judgment must be entered on order book and signed by presiding judge or successor.

2. Judgment. — Judgment entered on last day of term and signed at next term becomes effective from date of judgment; it being presumed, in absence of contrary showing, that judgment was signed when rendered.

3. Judgment. — At next term after judgment has been entered, and before it is signed, judge may modify judgment to make it conform to facts and rulings.

4. Appeal and Error. — Right of appeal accrues when judgment is signed.

5. Judgment. — After decretal sale of land to satisfy lien, judge had power to modify previous unsigned judgment directing sale.

6. Judicial Sales. — Sale of land to satisfy lien, made pursuant to unsigned decree, could properly be set aside.

7. Judicial Sales. — Inadequacy of price, although not ground for vacating sale, may present equity in favor of doing so in connection with other circumstances calling for resale (Ky. Stats., secs. 2362, 2365).

8. Judicial Sales. — Noncompliance with statute requiring revaluation of part of land sold to satisfy lien justifies setting aside sale (Ky. Stats., sec. 2362).

9. Judicial Sales. — Equity of redemption in land sold to satisfy lien may also be sold (Ky. Stats., sec. 2365).

10. Judicial Sales. — Where land sold in parcels to satisfy liens was appraised at $1,500, and bids were only $784, and responsible person filed bond for $1,250 bid for whole land, court justifiably ordered resale (Ky. Stats., secs. 2362, 2365).

11. Appeal and Error. — Where purchaser, appealing from judgment sustaining exceptions to decretal sale, sought to offset adverse judgment for costs against judgment in her favor against person not party to appeal, appellate court could not determine such question, not affecting other patries (Civil Code of Practice, secs. 377, 387).

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court.

W. MIKE OLIVER for appellant.

JOHN G. LOVETT for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE WILLIS.

Affirming.

A purchaser of land at a decretal sale has prosecuted an appeal from a judgment sustaining exceptions to the sale. Several exceptions were filed, but the judgment of the cricuit court does not disclose the particular ground upon which it was rested. Counsel for appellee, however, seeks to sustain the judgment upon several grounds. The decree of the court, at the time of the sale of the land, had not been signed by the judge. A proper appraisal of the land as sold had not been made. The total sale price was far below the appraised value of the property and much less than a bona fide offer of a responsible person to bid for it at a resale.

An abridged statement of the facts will indicate the situation presented.

The decree directed a sale of a fifty-acre tract of land to satisfy a lien for $324, plus interests and costs, and then to pay a subordinate lien for $935.40. The decree further directed that, in making a sale to satisfy the first lien, the commissioner should offer such portion of the east end of the property as would bring the debt, interest, and costs, and then to sell the balance, or so much thereof as might be necessary to pay the secondary lien, interest, and costs. The sale of the first portion was to be made on a credit of six months, and the other on a credit of six, twelve, and eighteen months.

The master commissioner accepted a bid for sixteen acres to satisfy the first lien, and, when he offered for sale the remaining thrity-four acres, only one bid of $400 was received. The appellant, Naner Butler Koontz, became the purchaser of the entire property. The decree was entered on April 12, 1930, the sale was made on June 23, 1930, and the report of sale was filed at the next term of court. The master commissioner caused the whole fifty acres to be appraised, but, after the sale of the sixteen acres, no separate appraisement was made. It appeared that the judgment had not been signed when the exceptions to the sale were filed, heard, and disposed of by the court. The court sustained the exceptions, modified the judgment of sale, and made specific directions for the conduct of a subsequent sale. A bond was filed by a responsible person by which he was bound to bid at least $1,250 at the resale.

It is argued that the court was not justified in setting aside the sale upon any of the grounds mentioned in the exceptions filed by the parties interested.

It is essential to the validity of a judgment that it shall be entered upon the order book provided for the purpose and duly signed by the presiding judge or his successor in the office. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hedges, 233 Ky. 840, 27 S.W. (2d) 422; Fox v. Lantrip, 162 Ky. 178, 172 S.W. 133; Farris v. Matthews, 149 Ky. 455, 149 S.W. 896; Bradley v. Bradley's Adm'r, 178 Ky. 239, 198 S.W. 905; Auxier v. Auxier, 180 Ky. 518, 203 S.W. 310; Anderson's Committee v. Anderson's Adm'r, 161 Ky. 18, 170 S.W. 213, L.R.A. 1915C, 581.

A judgment entered on the last day of a term and signed at the next term becomes effective from the date of the judgment; it being presumed, in the absence of a contrary showing by the record, that that judgment was signed when rendered. Hoffman v. Shuey, 223 Ky. 70, 2 S.W. (2d) 1049, 58 A.L.R. 842; Id., Second Appeal, 235 Ky. 490, 31 S.W. (2d) 727; Union Gas & Oil Co. v. Indian-Tex. Petroleum Co., 203 Ky. 521, 263 S.W. 1; Supreme Tent, Knights of Maccabees v. Depriest (Ky.) 36 S.W. (2d) ___, decided January 24, 1930. But at the next ensuing term after a judgment is entered, and before it has been signed, the judge has power to modify the judgment so as to make it conform to the facts and to record truly the ruling of the court. Fristoe v. Gillen, 80 S.W. 823, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 149; Wilcoxen v. Farmers' National Bank, 225 Ky. 764, 10 S.W. (2d) 298. But the right of...