Peters v. Kirkwood Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

• Decision Date: 07 July 1939
• Docket Number: 35783
• Parties: George M. Peters and Emma Mary Frances Peters, Appellants, v. Kirkwood Federal Savings & Loan Association, and P. G. Deuser
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

130 S.W.2d 507

344 Mo. 1067

George M. Peters and Emma Mary Frances Peters, Appellants, v. Kirkwood Federal Savings & Loan Association, and P. G. Deuser

No. 35783

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 7, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. John J Wolfe, Judge.

Transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Jesse L. England for appellants.

(1) The money judgment rendered against appellants is not within the issues of the case, was beyond the jurisdiction of the court nisi and cannot be sustained either in law or in fact. New York Merc. Co. v. Thurmond, 186 Mo. 425; Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 313; Roden v. Helm, 192 Mo. 94; In re Buckley, 53 S.W.2d 1057. (2) The decree of the court nisi does not take into consideration the changes in the contractual relations between the litigants based on valuable consideration and treats the original agreements as being in full force and effect in attempting to arrive at the financial obligation of the appellants under the obligations in issue. 6 R. C. L sec. 299, pp. 914, 915; Pratt v. Morrow, 45 Mo. 404; Hennings v. U.S. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 425.

Albert Chandler for Kirkwood Federal Savings & Loan Association.

Seemingly the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of this appeal -- the amount in controversy being under $ 7500, and title to real estate not involved. But as we confess our inability to apprehend the scope of appellants' assignments of error and their points, we will venture no farther than to suggest that the two groups of cases below have settled the principle controlling the jurisdiction. Perhaps the issues will be clarified on the argument enough to show into which group this appeal falls. Holding title to real estate not involved Morgan v. York, 337 Mo. 1076, 88 S.W.2d 146; Williams v. Barr, 55 S.W.2d 467; Williams v. Mackey, 331 Mo. 68, 52 S.W.2d 831; Musso v. S.C. Realty C. & F. Co., 29 S.W.2d 52; Farrell v. Seelig, 19 S.W.2d 648; Casner v. Schwartz, 276 S.W. 58; Clinton County Trust Co. v. Metzger, 266 S.W. 321; Holding title to real estate is involved: Koewing v. Greene County B. & L. Assn., 327 Mo. 680, 38 S.W.2d 40; Linneman v. Henry, 316 Mo. 678, 291 S.W. 109; Casebolt v. Courtney, 195 S.W. 746, 162 S.W. 1045; Conrey v. Pratt, 248 Mo. 576, 154 S.W. 749.

Bradley, C. Hyde and Dalton, CC., concur.

OPINION

BRADLEY

The purpose of this cause is to set aside a foreclosure sale, under a deed of trust, on the ground that the bond or note secured thereby had been "fully paid and satisfied." Defendant, Deuser, was the sheriff and acted as trustee at the foreclosure sale. The defendant savings and loan association, among other pleadings, filed what is called a cross complaint. The court found against plaintiffs and they appealed.

December 28, 1925, plaintiffs, husband and wife, subscribed for twenty-seven shares of stock ($ 300 per share) in the Kirkwood Building & Loan Association (name later changed), and on same date borrowed $ 8000 from the association. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on the real estate described in plaintiffs' petition and the pledge of the twenty-seven shares of stock. On the stock and loan, plaintiffs paid $ 110 monthly, April 17, 1926, plaintiffs subscribed for ten additional shares of stock, and borrowed an additional $ 3000 secured by the pledge of the ten shares of stock and a second deed of trust on the same real estate securing the $ 8000 loan. The monthly payments on the second stock subscription and loan was $ 41 per month.

After the second loan, plaintiffs' monthly payment was $ 151, which amount was regularly paid up to and including September 10, 1929. About that time, an effort was made to readjust the two loans so that the total monthly payment would be less than $ 151 per month, and an agreement was reached whereby the total monthly payment was reduced from $ 151 to $ 77.50, but, on examination of title, a judgment (plaintiffs say mechanic's lien) against plaintiff, George M. Peters, was discovered, and the secretary of defendant testified that he advised Mr. Peters that the original deeds of trust, because of this judgment, could not be released. However, plaintiffs continued to pay and defendant continued to accept the $ 77.50 monthly payment until March 8, 1932. On that date what is termed a "loan extension agreement" was entered into by which future payments would be $ 65.10 per month, and the amount due remained secured by the two original deeds of trust. The $ 65.10 monthly payment was made until May 29, 1934, after which time no payment was made.

December 2, 1935, defendant foreclosed under the second deed of trust, and became the purchaser on a bid of $ 1000. Defendant's assistant secretary testified that, at the time of foreclosure, the amount secured by the first deed of trust was $ 5369.61, and by the second, $ 1013.27. Defendant, as we understand, prorated proportionately the $ 77.50 and the $ 65.10 monthly payments on the original and second loan.

The court found that defendant had "fully accounted for all sums of money paid to it by plaintiffs; . . . that plaintiff had paid nothing on the obligations secured by the deeds of trust after the month of May, 1934;" that, at the time of foreclosure, the amount, secured by the respective deeds of trust, was as above stated. The court also found that plaintiff's "seek to redeem said properties and have asked that an accounting be taken . . . and have tendered payment of such balance as the court may find on said accounting; . . . that said association has consented to such accounting and redemption; that the amount due and payable to entitle plaintiffs to redeem is the sum of $ 6382.88 with interest at six per cent from December 2, 1935; but that if redemption is not made, then the amount owing from plaintiffs to said defendant association should be credited with the net sale price aforesaid as of said December 2, 1935."

By the judgment (February 26, 1937) plaintiffs were given "to and including March 9, 1937" to pay into the registry of the court the $ 6382.88, plus interest at 6 per cent from December 2, 1935; and it was directed that upon such payment, defendant convey to plaintiffs the property described in the deeds of trust, and that "any claims" of defendant against plaintiffs "be cancelled and discharged." And it was further adjudged that if such payment was not made, as directed, then plaintiffs were directed to "vacate and surrender possession of said real estate to said defendant on or before March 15, 1937, and on so recovering possession said defendant shall satisfy this judgment." Also, it was adjudged that "on the failure of plaintiffs so to quit possession and vacate said real estate, that a writ of possession shall issue directing the sheriff to put" defendant in possession; and further, it was adjudged that, upon failure of plaintiffs to surrender possession and pay the $ 6382.88, plus interest, defendant would retain all the property and also "have and recover of plaintiffs the sum of $ 5423.63, with interest at six per cent per annum from December 2, 1935."

At the threshold we are confronted with the...