Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist Et Ux
Decision Date | 17 December 1938 |
Docket Number | 6004 |
Citation | 96 Utah 297,85 P.2d 770 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | LOCAL REALTY CO. v. LINDQUIST et ux |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Allen G. Thurman, Judge.
Action by the Local Realty Company against V. A. Lindquist and Mary Lindquist, his wife, to recover rental value of mortgaged premises during redemption period. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Stephens Brayton & Lowe and Calvin Behle, all of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
F Henri Henroid, of Salt Lake City, for respondents.
This action presents the question: Is the owner-mort-gagor who is in actual possession of real estate from the time of sale under mortgage foreclosure to expiration of the redemption period,--when he does not redeem,--liable to the mortgagee-purchaser at the sale for the rental value of the premises during the redemption period?
This involves a construction of Section 104-37-37, R. S.U. 1933, which reads as follows:
(Italics added.)
This section however must be read in connection with certain others which we now set forth. Chapter 55 of Title 104 deals with "Foreclosure of Mortgages," and two sections therein are important, which so far as material here read:
104-55-1: (Italics added.)
104-55-6: "Sales of real estate under judgments of foreclosure of mortgages and liens are subject to redemption as in case of sales under executions generally. * * *"
Chapter 37 of Title 104 deals with executions and as far as material here reads:
104-37-29: * * *"
104-37-35: (Italics added.)
104-37-36: "When real property has been sold on execution, the purchaser thereof, or any person who may have succeeded to his interest, may, after his estate becomes absolute, recover damages for injury to the property by the tenant in possession after sale and before possession is delivered under the conveyance." (Italics added.)
The last section of the chapter (104-37-40) deals with "redemptions on Sales under Trust Deeds." It provides for redemption from such sales in the same way as from execution sales; provides for giving of a similar certificate of sale, and the execution and delivery of a deed at the expiration of six months if there is no redemption.
These statutes give rise to the following questions:
1. Do the provisions quoted above from Chapter 55 fix the rights as between the purchaser and the mortgagor or owner of the premises on foreclosure sale as the same rights which exist between the purchaser at an execution sale and the judgment debtor on an unsecured debt, or are those sections referring to executions merely procedural sections covering only the way or method in which a sale and redemption shall be made and not attempting to define, limit, or grant rights to either?
2. Under Section 104-37-29, supra, when is the purchaser substituted to all the right and title, etc., of the judgment debtor--at time of the sale or at time of the deed?
3. Who is entitled to the possession during the redemption period?
4. Is such possession merely a naked one, or does it carry with it the usufruct or use and benefit of the property?
5. Can the purchaser or a redemptioner compel the judgment debtor in possession to pay rent or the value of the use and occupation during the redemption period?
We shall note them in order.
1. Even a casual reading of Section 104-55-1, supra reveals that the reference to provisions of the law relating to sales on execution, in that section, has merely procedural significance, i. e., it does not attempt to fix or define any rights of the mortgagor or mortgagee in reference to the property, but merely directs that in making the sale under foreclosure proceedings the sheriff shall proceed in the same way as he does in making sales under executions generally.
But Section 104-55-6, supra, is more than a procedural section; it involves more than the method by which redemptions may be made. It declares in effect that all persons who could redeem were the sale made on an execution issued on a straight money judgment in personam, shall have the same rights to redeem, and in the same way, when the sale is made in foreclosure proceedings. This section confers and defines the extent of the right to redeem as well as providing the method in which a redemption shall be made. Both the right and the method shall be as provided in the law governing sales on execution.
2. This question on has never before been considered in this state and our attention has not been called to any case which has considered or answered the same. The statute reads:
104-37-29: * * *"
When does the purchaser acquire all the right, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor? Does he acquire it at the time the property is bid in at the sale, or upon expiration of the redemption period? We have no hesitancy in holding it is at the end of the redemption period, and not at the time of bidding in the property. It is self-evident that the purchaser does not have all the right or title of the judgment debtor until redemption has expired. The right of possession is one the judgment debtor has at the time of sale, and that right remains in him until the execution of the sheriff's deed. So too the legal title is often in the judgment debtor and that cannot vest in the purchaser until after the redemption period, and he cannot under any circumstance obtain that at the sale, and so too is the right of redemption. So also all crops harvested during the redemption period belong to the debtor or person in possession and cannot be claimed by the purchaser under the sale.
It is evident from both logic and other provisions of the statute that it was not intended that this provision should be effective until the expiration of the redemption period. That is to say, that the sale which is initiated when the property was offered for sale by the sheriff and bid in by the purchaser is a continuing matter and not concluded and completed until the expiration of the redemption period. Then when the sale is consummated and completed, the purchaser is subrogated to and acquires all the right, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor in and to the property. Until that time the interest of the purchaser is an equitable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caldwell v. Thiessen
... ... occupancy thereof. The only case squarely to the contrary is ... Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist, 96 Utah 297, 85 P.2d ... 770. The California holding is the only logical ... ...
-
P.I.E. Employees Federal Credit Union v. Bass
...foreclosure is not a forced sale, this Court on at least one occasion has reached a different conclusion. In Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist, 96 Utah 297, 309, 85 P.2d 770, 775 (1938), the Court declared that there are three types of forced sales that are against the will of the debtor: (1) e......
-
AMERICAN INTERSTATE MORTG. CORP. v. Edwards
...and defendant had no interest therein, and by this redemption they were restored to their former estates."); Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist, 96 Utah 297, 85 P.2d 770, 772 (1938) ("[W]hen the sale is consummated and completed, the purchaser is subrogated to and acquires all the right, title, ......
-
Tech-Fluid Services, Inc. v. Gavilan Operating, Inc., TECH-FLUID
...in the property do not vest in the purchaser at a foreclosure sale until the redemption period has expired. Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist, 96 Utah 297, 85 P.2d 770, 772 (1938). "[T]he interest of the purchaser is [merely] an equitable interest, subject to be lost or cancelled or taken away ......