Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski
| Decision Date | 10 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 19.,19. |
| Parties | ORZECHOWSKI et al. v. KOLODZIEJSKI et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Edward Orzechowski and another against Stella Kolodziejski, as survivor of herself and her husband, Stephen J. Kolodziejski, and another. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Thomas J. Murphy, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Jesse Drake and Frank J. Kolodziejski, both of Detroit (Charles A. Bryan, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Samuel H. Rubin, of Detroit (Melba Levin-Rubin, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.
March 14, 1932, defendant and her husband, vendors in a land contract, had judgment against plaintiffs, vendees, for installments then due and unpaid on the contract. May 24 the vendors gave the vendees notice of forfeiture of the contract for default in payments falling due subseqnently to those included in the judgment. Later, the vendors recovered possession of the premises under writ to restitution, upon judgment in summary proceedings.
Plaintiffs (vendees) filed this bill to cancel and annul the judgment at law and to restrain defendant (as successor of herself and husband) from enforcing it. Plaintiffs had decree for perpetual stay of judgment and injunction against the enforcement.
The question is new in this state, but the authorities elsewhere seem to be unanimous in holding that a judgment for unpaid installments cannot be enforced after the forfeiture. Des Moines Joint Stock Land Bank v. Wyffels, 185 Minn. 476, 241 N.W. 592;Warren v. Ward, 91 Minn. 254, 97 N.W. 886;Ward v. Warren, 44 Or. 102, 74 P. 482; Gibbons v. Cozen, 29 Ont. 356; Cameron v. Bradbury, 9 Grants Ch.Rep. 67; Black on Rescission & Cancellation (2d Ed.) § 621, p. 1507; 27 R.C.L. 666; L.R.A.1916C, 895.
The cases treat the judgment merely as evidence of the installments it represents and hold it noncollectible after forfeiture, under the established rule that after forfeiture no recovery can be had for any unpaid installments, or because collection would be inequitable, or for failure of consideration due to the forfeiture.
The ruling may be sustained on another principle. Fundamentally, forfeiture is rescission and, in the absence of contract, the vendor would be obliged to put the vendee in status quo ante the execution of the contract and restore to him the payments he had made, subject to equitable adjustment on account of possession, improvements, and otherwise. However, the contract at bar disposed of all the equities and specifically declared the rights of the parties. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witte, Matter of
...that a judgment for an interim installment payment may not be enforced after a forfeiture has been declared: Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski, 281 Mich. 657, 275 N.W. 722 (1937); Novus Equities Corp. v. EM-TY Partnership, 381 N.W.2d 426 (Minn.1986); Gray v. Mitchell, 145 Or. 519, 28 P.2d 631 (19......
-
Mazur v. Young
...the debt and no further obligations remain on either side. Thus, "[f]undamentally, forfeiture is rescission."2 Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski, 281 Mich. 657, 275 N.W. 722, 722 (1937). At the conclusion of a summary proceeding for possession after forfeiture, the seller recovers possession of t......
-
Trans West Co. v. Teuscher
...Sheehan, 413 F.2d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1059, 90 S.Ct. 754, 24 L.Ed.2d 753 (1970); Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski, 281 Mich. 657, 275 N.W. 722 (1937); Warren v. Ward, 91 Minn. 254, 97 N.W. 886 (1904); Ward v. Warren, 44 Or. 102, 74 P. 482 (1903). See also Blenz v. ......
-
Abodeely v. Cavras
...in Stephenson v. Neppel, 192 Iowa 246, 182 N.W. 369; First Nat. Bank v. LeBarron, 201 Iowa 853, 208 N.W. 364; Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski, 281 Mich. 657, 275 N.W. 722; Wayzata Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman, 268 Minn. 117, 128 N.W.2d 156. The same rule is stated in somewhat different language ......