Lovejoy v. Americus
Decision Date | 15 July 1920 |
Docket Number | 15735. |
Citation | 111 Wash. 571,191 P. 790 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | LOVEJOY et ux. v. AMERICUS et al. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Bruce Blake, Judge.
Action by Frank L. Lovejoy and wife against S. L. Americus and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
S. L. Americus, of Hillyard, and F. W. Girand Cordiner & Cordiner, and Ripley & Quakenbush, all of Spokane for appellants.
C. C Upton, of Hillyard, for respondents.
On August 9, 1917, the defendant S. L. Americus had an unsatisfied judgment against these plaintiffs in the sum of $63.15, with interest from September 3, 1915, and costs $7.25, upon which he took out an execution and caused the sheriff to levy upon some six or seven detached parcels of real property of plaintiffs, situated in Spokane county. All the property was sold in bulk to the judgment creditor at sheriff's sale, for $87.92, the amount of the judgment, costs, and increased costs. The sale was confirmed by the superior court, and in due time, September 17, 1918, a sheriff's deed was issued to the purchaser. Under date of January 25, 1919, Americus and wife made a quitclaim deed to the property to the defendant Samuel D. Rodibaugh, of Westmorland county, Pa., and on the same day caused the deed to be recorded in the office of the auditor of Spokane county. Four days later this action was commenced against Americus and wife and Rodibaugh to set aside the sheriff's sale, certificate of sale, and deed, and also the deed to Rodibaugh, upon the grounds of inadequacy of price, together with fraud in procuring the sheriff's sale and deed, and that the deed to Rodibaugh was without consideration and fraudulent. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant have appealed.
In their reply brief, which was served nearly 5 months after the service of respondents' brief, appellants moved, for the first time, to strike respondents' brief, because it was not served within 30 days after appellants' opening brief had been served. The situation is similar to that in Magnuson v. MacAdam, 77 Wash. 289, 137 P. 485, upon which authority the motion is denied.
Upon the merits, in addition to what has been stated, from the pleadings and proof it very clearly appears that respondents and Americus and wife have been well acquainted and residents of Hillyard, Wash., some 8 or 10 years. Persistently, orally and by letters, respondents were requested to pay the judgment, down until the issuance of execution, after which nothing was said to them about payment. Respondents had no actual notice of the sheriff's levy and sale until the latter part of December, 1918, more than 3 months after the expiration of the redemption period. Upon learning of the situation, on more than one occasion, and as late as January 24, 1919, they offered to pay and tendered cash sufficient to satisfy the judgment, interest, costs, and increased costs, and even offered to apy a reasonable amount to satisfy appellants for any trouble they had been put to. The tender was finally rejected on January 24, 1919, and the next day Americus and wife made and filed their deed to Rodibaugh. The tender made was kept good by respondent by a deposit in court upon commencing this suit 5 days later. There was an outstanding mortgage of $1,000 on one piece of the property, but over and above that the reasonable value of all the property included in the sheriff's sale and deed was in excess of $4,000. One piece of the property was and still is the residence of respondents. Another piece of the property, of the value of $2,500, and not used as a homestead, nor for farming purposes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank
...this trustee's actions, along with the grossly inadequate purchase price, would result in a void sale.” Id. (citing Lovejoy v. Americus, 111 Wash. 571, 574, 191 P. 790 (1920)). In Cox, the trustee consistently favored the beneficiary, who was also his client, over the homeowner, to whom of ......
-
Miebach v. Colasurdo
...a decree setting the sale aside" on equitable grounds. Roger v. Whitham, 56 Wash. 190, 193, 105 P. 628 (1909). See Lovejoy v. Americus, 111 Wash. 571, 191 P. 790 (1920); Triplett v. Bergman, 82 Wash. 639, 642, 144 P. 899 (1914); Miller v. Winslow, 70 Wash. 401, 406, 126 P. 906 (1912); Annot......
-
Frizzell v. Murray
...this trustee's actions, along with the grossly inadequate purchase price, would result in a void sale.” Id. (citing Lovejoy v. Americus, 111 Wash. 571, 574, 191 P. 790 (1920); Miebach v. Colasurdo, 102 Wash.2d 170, 685 P.2d 1074 (1984)). Put another way, equity demanded that a lower court b......
-
Udall v. T.D. Escrow Services, Inc.
...value, were sufficient to justify setting aside a judicial foreclosure sale on equitable grounds). See also Lovejoy v. Americus, 111 Wash. 571, 572-73, 575, 191 P. 790 (1920); Roger v. Whitham, 56 Wash. 190, 191, 195, 105 P. 628 8. "Washington law provides that no deficiency judgment may be......