Libby v. Uptegrove, WD
| Decision Date | 30 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 988 S.W.2d 131 |
| Parties | Jeffrey A. and Louisa A. LIBBY, Respondents, v. Kent and Jane UPTEGROVE, Appellants. 55704. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James F. Crews, Tipton, for appellants.
Kenneth M. Hayden, Versailles, for respondents.
Before Presiding Judge JAMES M. SMART, Jr., Judge FOREST W. HANNA and Judge LAURA DENVIR STITH.
Appellants, Kent and Jane Uptegrove, entered into a contract in which they agreed to sell a strip of land in Camden County, Missouri to the respondents, Jeffrey and Louisa Libby. After the Libbys performed the conditions of the contract, the Uptegroves refused to transfer the property. The Libbys filed a petition for breach of contract against the Uptegroves and sought to specifically enforce the sale.
Prior to trial, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement under which the Uptegroves agreed to sell to the Libbys the real estate at issue for the sum of $2,500 and to transfer the real estate by a warranty deed, at which point the Libbys would dismiss with prejudice their lawsuit pending against the Uptegroves. However, shortly after the Libbys deposited their payment with the court, the Uptegroves notified the Libbys that they did not intend to proceed with the terms of the settlement agreement.
On February 27, 1998, the Libbys filed a motion for specific performance of the settlement agreement. After a hearing on the motion, the court sustained the motion and ordered the Uptegroves to perform the provisions of the settlement agreement and to consummate transfer of the real estate to the Libbys by execution of a warranty deed.
The Uptegroves appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering specific performance of the settlement agreement because the trustee of the deed of trust on the land in question was not joined as a party to the underlying suit to enforce the sale of the land. The Uptegroves admit that they did not raise this issue below, but argue that the trustee was an indispensable party and that under Rule 52.04 and Kelsey v. Nathey, 869 S.W.2d 213 (Mo.App.1993), the failure to join an indispensable party can be raised at any time, even on appeal.
We disagree that the Uptegroves are entitled to relief. First, the argument that the trustee is an indispensable party is premised on the claim that the trustee holds title to the real estate under its deed of trust. It is well-settled under Missouri law, however, that:
Notwithstanding that the typical deed of trust purports to be a conveyance in fee by the mortgagor to the trustee to secure a debt, and a lease back from the trustee to the mortgagor so long as he faithfully performs the covenants thereof, it is not considered to vest title in the trustee, and does nothing more than create a lien in favor of the mortgagee ... While the trustee is a proper party in a suit involving the deed of trust, she is not a necessary party.
Todd, Foreclosures of Deeds of Trust at 7-8 (3d ed.1996). See, e.g., Casper v. Lee, 362 Mo. 927, 245 S.W.2d 132, 138-39 (1952); Sugrue v. Janssen, 713 S.W.2d 44, 45 (Mo.App.1986); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Thelnor, 485 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reinerio v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
...Caranchini v. Kozeny & McCubbin, LLC, No. 4:11-CV-464-DGK, 2011 WL 5921364, at *3 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 28, 2011)(citing Libby v. Uptegrove, 988 S.W.2d 131,132 (Mo.Ct.App. 1999)). Therefore, the court may ignore the citizenship of a trustee who "has no ownership in [the p]laintiff's property" and "......
-
Katun Corp. v. Clarke
...in good faith. See De Mars v. Musser-Sauntry Land, Logging & Mfg. Co., 37 Minn. 418, 35 N.W. 1, 1 (1887); see also Libby v. Uptegrove, 988 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.Ct.App.1999) ("by settling, the [defendants] necessarily waived any defenses they might otherwise have had to the underlying claim")......
-
Behrens v. United States
...bearing on deed interpretation." Id. (citing Eurengy v. Equitable Realty Corp., 107 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Mo. 1937) and Libby v. Uptegrove, 988 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)). The court agrees with defendant that the Hafner deed makes more than one conveyance, and that each must be treated s......
-
First Nat'l Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
...a deed of trust does not shift title to either the trustee or mortgagee, but creates a lien for the mortgagee. See Libby v. Uptegrove, 988 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (citing Todd, Foreclosures of Deeds of Trust at 7-8 (3d ed. 1996)). Cf. P.M.K., Inc. v. Folsom Heights Dev. Co., 69......