Ruhl v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 09 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 32950,32950 |
| Parties | RUHL et ux. v. JOHNSON et ux. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Courts of equity will decree a strict foreclosure of land contracts only under peculiar and special circumstances. Applications of that character are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and they will be granted in cases where it would be inequitable and unjust to refuse them.
Richard O. Johnson, H. B. Muffly, Lincoln, for appellant.
Cline, Williams, Wright & Johnson, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, WENKE, and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
This action began as one in ejectment brought by vendors against purchasers and based on alleged breaches of a contract of sale of real estate and personal property. It ended with a decree of strict foreclosure running in favor of the vendors and against the purchasers. The purchasers appeal. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause with directions.
For convenience the vendors will be referred to herein as plaintiffs and the purchasers as defendants. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The defendants are husband and wife.
This action was tried upon the petition of the plaintiffs, the answer and cross-petition of defendants, and the reply and answer to cross-petition of plaintiffs. We have here for examination and consideration the above pleadings and the court's decree, together with motions for new trial filed by both parties, a bill of exceptions not having been settled as required by statute.
By petition filed September 2, 1949, plaintiff's alleged in general that the plaintiff husband was the legal owner in fee simple of certain real estate in the city of Lincoln; that on October 10, 1947, plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract of sale whereby the defendants agreed to buy the property for $38,000-$12,000 to be paid at that time and the balance payable in monthly installments of $256.46, including interest on the principal due at 5 percent per annum; that defendants were to pay taxes and insurance; that plaintiffs put defendants in possession; that defendants paid thereon the $12,000, and the monthly payments to and including June 1949; that defendants defaulted in the payments due for July and August 1949; that they failed to pay taxes in the amount of $191.25; that demand for performance had been made; that defendants had advised plaintiffs they would not perform; that time was of the essence by the contract; and that notice of the termination of the contract had been given and demand for possession made. Plaintiffs prayed for ejectment and that they be put in possession.
Defendants moved to make more definite and certain and demurred. The motion and demurrer were overruled. Defendants assign these rulings as error. As we view the issues presented here, these assignments need not be determined.
Defendants answered, denied generally, any by cross-petition admitted in substance the contract and the payments made, alleged the payment of insurance and taxes, alleged false representations made by plaintiffs and relied on by defendants as to the condition, quality, and value of the buildings on the premises, alleged damage of $15,000, and prayed for credit of that amount on the purchase price. Defendants alleged that by virtue of payments made to plaintiffs and expenditures made on the property, they had an equitable title to the property, and that plaintiffs by action of ejectment were undertaking to deny a right to redeem under a judicial foreclosure.
By reply and answer to the cross-petition, plaintiffs joined issue on the allegations of misrepresentation.
The defendants moved that the cause be transferred to the equity docket. Plaintiffs waived a jury trial. The court sustained the motion to transfer.
The trial court did not make a general finding for the plaintiffs or the defendants. It found that the plaintiff husband was the legal owner of the real estate; that a contract of purchase had been made; that defendants had been placed in possession of the property; that payment of $12,000 had been made on the principal sum, as well as the monthly payments to and including June 10, 1949; that defendants refused to make further payments until an adjustment had been made as to the purchase price by reason of the representations of the plaintiffs as to the condition of the property; that defendants had failed to pay taxes or insurance as provided by the contract; that false representations had been made as to specific matters; and that defendants had relied on them and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Heartline Farms, Inc.
...N.W.2d at 565-66 (equity of $1559.68 as compared to a purchase price of $13,500.00 is not substantial equity). But see Ruhl v. Johnson, 154 Neb. 810, 49 N.W.2d 687 (1951) (equity of $16,000.00 as compared to a purchase price of $38,000.00 is substantial I hold that a Nebraska land contract ......
-
Johnson v. Ruhl
...of the district court was reversed and the cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Ruhl v. Johnson, 154 Neb. 810, 49 N.W.2d 687. The district court thereafter upon consideration of the opinion of this court and the mandate found that at the time the ejectment......
-
Miller v. Radtke
...would not offend against justice and equity. See, also, Ryan v. Kolterman, 215 Neb. 355, 338 N.W.2d 747 (1983); Ruhl v. Johnson, 154 Neb. 810, 49 N.W.2d 687 (1951). Plaintiff, in her brief at 4, is honorably forthright in conceding that, "as a general rule, equity abhors forfeitures" and, a......
-
Riffey v. Schulke, 39600
...to the sound legal discretion of the court, and will be granted where it would be inequitable and unjust to refuse them. Ruhl v. Johnson, 154 Neb. 810, 49 N.W.2d 687. Strict foreclosure will be decreed only under peculiar and special circumstances where the purchaser does not have a substan......