Potwin v. Tucker, 1275

• Decision Date: 02 December 1969
• Docket Number: No. 1275,1275
• Citation: 259 A.2d 781,128 Vt. 142
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Roger POTWIN and Beverly Potwin v. Ira O. TUCKER, Viola Tucker and Paul A. Bourdon.

Page 781

259 A.2d 781

128 Vt. 142

Roger POTWIN and Beverly Potwin v. Ira O. TUCKER, Viola Tucker and Paul A. Bourdon.

No. 1275.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Dec. 2, 1969.

James W. Wright, Woodstock, for plaintiffs.

Frederick J. Glover, Ludlow, for Paul A. Bourdon, for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

HOLDEN, Chief Justice.

This appeal comes from proceedings in the chancery court of Windsor County after the remand in Potwin v. Tucker, 126 Vt. 414, 234 A.2d 430. In the prior appeal a decree of specific performance of a land purchase and sale agreement from the defendants Tucker to the plaintiffs was affirmed. The order of the chancellor was also directed against the defendant Bourdon, the sellers' grantee. It was determined in the case in chief that this defendant acquired title and possession of the property with knowledge that his grantors, the Tuckers, had previously agreed to sell the premises to the plaintiffs for a lesser price. The cause was remanded to accomplish the proper discharge of mortgage encumbrances and an accounting between the parties. One direction was that taxes and other intervening obligations 'should be accounted for, and, if proper, reimbursed.' Potwin v. Tucker, supra, 126 Vt. at 420, 234 A.2d at 434.

The matter was submitted to the chancellor as an agreed case. The consideration price, paid by defendant Bourdon to the defendant Tucker on June 9, 1963, was $5,000. Insurance and taxes paid by the defendant, Bourdon, during the period 1963 to the time of hearing, were stipulated.

The Chancellor ordered the plaintiffs to pay the balance due on a mortgage indebtedness created in a mortgage deed from Paul A. Bourdon to Frank Gardner in the amount of $2,700. In addition, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the balance due, if any, on a mortgage from the defendants Tucker to the Vermont National and Savings Bank, such payments in the aggregate, not to exceed $4,500. The defendants Tucker were ordered to pay the defendant Bourdon $500, representing 'the difference which they received between the purchase price to be paid by the plaintiffs and the amount actually paid by the said Paul A. Bourdon.'

In so doing, the court disallowed interest on the consideration paid to Tucker by Bourdon and also denied his recovery of taxes and insurance. All the defendants filed notices of appeal. However, the appellants Tucker were granted leave to withdraw their appeal at time of oral argument. This leaves only the questions raised by defendant Bourdon's appeal concerning his right to reimbursement for taxes and insurance premiums, together with interest accruing over the time of his occupancy.

In this aspect of the case, the appellant stands in the position of a claimant. He claims he has been unjustly penalized and seeks restitution for benefits which he was conferred upon the plaintiffs. He contends that denial of reimbursement will result in the plaintiffs' enrichment at his, that is, Bourdon's expense.

Certainly the defendant has no standing, legal or equitable, to claim interest against the plaintiffs whose contract he obstructed. They have gained no benefit and have suffered considerable detriment by this intrusion upon their contractual undertaking. Even as between the Tuckers and Bourdon, interest is not recoverable until repayment was due and payable. Norman v. American Woolen Co., 117 Vt. 28, 34, 84 A.2d 125. That time did not arrive until the plaintiffs' right to specific performance was established.

Bourdon, as the purchaser of the Tucker property, with notice of the sellers' prior contract to sell to the plaintiffs, stands in the shoes of the vendor. Although he held legal title, the equitable estate was in the plaintiffs. Dutton v. Davis, 103 Vt. 450, 452, 156 A. 531; Wilkins v....