Satchell v. Alsop

• Decision Date: 25 October 1932
• Docket Number: No. 41625.,41625.
• Citation: 215 Iowa 161,244 N.W. 838
• Parties: SATCHELL v. ALSOP ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

215 Iowa 161

244 N.W. 838

SATCHELL

v.ALSOP ET AL.

No. 41625.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1932.

Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; J. G. Patterson, Judge.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. From a decree in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Thomas J. Bray, of Oskaloosa, for appellant.

McCoy & McCoy and Devitt, Eichhorn & Devitt, all of Oskaloosa, for appellees.

ALBERT, J.

On March 1, 1920, the defendants Alsop, Colville, and Hamilton purchased from the plaintiff a 78-acre farm, the purchase price of which was $28,000; $10,000 was paid in cash, and the remainder of $18,000 was settled by the execution of three promissory notes and a first mortgage on said farm, and the plaintiff's suit herein is to foreclose the said mortgage.

The above-named defendants conveyed the farm to J. H. Klein, and on March 1, 1929, Klein reconveyed said farm to said defendants. The interest was paid, and on March 16, 1929, $2,000 of the principal indebtedness was paid to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff and the defendants Alsop, Colville, and Hamilton, and their respective wives, entered into an agreement for the extension of the mortgage, there being still $16,000 due on the farm. The amount and time of payment of said balance due was changed from the provisions of the original contract, making $1,000 payable on March 1, 1930, and $1,000 on each successive March 1st up to and including 1934, and the balance of $11,000 due on March 1, 1934, together with interest, etc. This agreement then continues: “And it is specifically agreed that if said payments be not made as above provided, these parties will, at once, execute to Minerva J. Satchell, her representatives. heirs, or assigns, a deed to said premises described in said mortgage, said foreclosure being waived and the year of redemption being waived. And it is further agreed that said parties will pay the balance then remaining at the time of the death of the said Minerva J. Satchell, if said death shall occur after March 1, 1931, and the parties to this agreement hereby agree that said mortgage shall continue as a first lien upon said premises and said note and mortgage and all the covenants and conditions contained in said note and mortgage shall remain in full force except as herein modified.”

The provisions of said mortgage and the extension agreement not having been complied with, on March 1, 1932, because of the failure of the defendants to make payment as therein provided, the purchasers of said property, together with their respective wives, executed and acknowledged a warranty deed to said property on the 5th day of March, 1932, reconveying said property to the plaintiff, and on that date turned said deed over to the sheriff accompanied by a letter to the plaintiff, which letter and deed were given by the sheriff to the plaintiff on the same day. This letter reads as follows:

“Mrs. Minerva Satchell, Oskaloosa, Iowa.

“Dear Madam: In compliance with the agreement entered into by you with the undersigned on or about the 16th day of March, 1929, by the terms of which agreement we were to execute to you a deed to the property described in the mortgage referred to in said agreement, we have this day executed a warranty deed conveying said property to you, as provided in said contract, and the same will be delivered to you by the sheriff of Mahaska County, Iowa, today with this letter.

“This letter will further advise you that the insurance policy on said buildings expires March 6, 1932, so that if you desire the insurance continued, or to get other insurance, you will have an opportunity to do so.

“We also beg to advise you that the taxes for the year 1931, payable in 1932, have been paid by us and the property is free and clear of all liens.” Signed by Colville, Alsop, and Hamilton.

The plaintiff in this action is a widow eighty-four years of age, and is dependent largely upon her son-in-law, Homer Hull, to look after her business affairs. Upon receipt of the above letter, she immediately notified Hull to come and look after this matter for her, and he appeared on the 7th day of March (the 6th being Sunday), and thereupon plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendants and returned the deed to them on the last-named date. The substance of this letter is as follows: “I am returning deed herewith. I cannot accept this deed as in any way a settlement of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, which mortgage indebtedness you agreed to pay in the agreement for extension of mortgage dated the 16th day of March, 1929, I am compelled to demand that you pay said indebtedness in accordance with your note and agreement, $1,000 being due on the first day of March, 1932, and according to the mortgage the failure to pay said sum makes the entire mortgage indebtedness become immediately due and payable, and action will have to be brought to foreclose the mortgage and obtain judgment, if the said sum of $1,000 be not immediately paid.”

This deed was shuttled back and forth between the defendants and the plaintiff several times, but the plaintiff at all times refused to accept it.

On the 5th day of March, 1932, one Gordon, an insurance agent, appeared at the plaintiff's residence, having been advised by the defendants that they had delivered the deed to the farm to the plaintiff. He testified that he told her she had a right, as the holder of the mortgage, to insure it. “I never did deliver the policy to her. I never asked her to pay for this policy.”

The policy contained a copy of the application and note signed by the plaintiff. The application contained two questions relative to the title and ownership of the property which are not answered. As to the question of what was the nature of her title, the answer is, “Deed.” Another question is: “Is the land described mortgaged?” The...