Sterling Escrow Co. v. Vandernoot

• Decision Date: 09 May 1957
• Citation: 310 P.2d 692,150 Cal.App.2d 735
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: STERLING ESCROW CO., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Philip VANDERNOOT, Pearl Vandernoot, Alonzo Parks, Pauline Parks, and Sarah Abrahamer, Defendants, Alonzo Parks and Pauline Parks, Appellants. Civ. 21919.

Page 692

310 P.2d 692

150 Cal.App.2d 735

STERLING ESCROW CO., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Philip VANDERNOOT, Pearl Vandernoot, Alonzo Parks, Pauline Parks, and Sarah Abrahamer, Defendants, Alonzo Parks and Pauline Parks, Appellants.

Civ. 21919.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

May 9, 1957.

Roscoe C. Carroll, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for respondent.

PARKER WOOD, Justice.

Action in interpleader. Alonzo Parks and Pauline Parks appeal from an interlocutory judgment entered November 21, 1955. They executed a promissory note for $7,308.45, payable to Philip Vandernoot and Pearl Vandernoot. As security for the payment of the note, Mr. and Mrs. Parks executed a trust deed wherein Sterling Escrow Company was named trustee. The real property described in the trust deed was sold at a trustee's sale for $8,524.14 to Sarah Abrahamer, who was owner of a second trust deed on the property. Plaintiff, as trustee, commenced this action to require the Parks, Vandernoots, and Mrs. Abrahamer to plead and litigate their claims to the proceeds of the sale.

The complaint alleged, in part, that the 'Deed Of Trust' was sold by the trustee, 'according to law'; that each of the defendants claimed the proceeds or a portion thereof; that plaintiff intended to deposit the proceeds in court at the time of filing the complaint.

The answer of defendants Parks denied the allegations of the complaint, except that plaintiff was trustee and that plaintiff executed a trustee's deed in favor of defendant Abrahamer. Their answer also alleged that the purported trustee's sale was contrary to law; plaintiff was without authority to execute the deed; the deed was executed for the purpose of defrauding defendants Parks; they had defenses 'to the purported sale' which defenses were pleaded in case Number 633655 then pending in the superior court; plaintiff and the other defendants had knowledge of such defenses prior to the sale; defendants Vandernoot and plaintiff induced defendants Parks to execute the trust deed by false representations which were set forth in said case Number 633655; the note was fraudulently obtained by defendants Vandernoot and plaintiff; defendant Abrahamer knew prior to the sale that the note had been fraudulently obtained; there was a failure of consideration for the note and trust deed.

A demurrer of defendants Vandernoot to the complaint was sustained with leave to amend. The amended complaint was substantially the same as the complaint, except that it alleged further as follows: that plaintiff had deposited the proceeds of the sale with the county clerk; the Vandernoots claimed the proceeds as beneficiaries under the trust deed; defendant Abrahamer, as a junior lienholder, claimed any surplus above the amount to which the Vandernoots were entitled; that prior to the commencement of the action the defendants Parks orally claimed the proceeds, stating that the note and trust deed were usurious and there was a failure of consideration for them.

The answer of defendants Vandernoot to the amended complaint alleged that the note and trust deed were valid and were given for a valuable consideration. In the answer of defendant Abrahamer to the amended complaint, she claimed all the proceeds above the amount due the Vandernoots.

Defendants Parks did not answer the amended complaint. On November 3, 1955, the date of the trial, and prior to the time the case was transferred from the department of the presiding judge to a trial department, the attorney for defendants Parks filed a disclaimer of interest in the proceeds of the sale. ¹ Thereafter, on that date, the case was assigned to a trial department. Neither of the defendants Parks, nor their attorney, was present at the trial.

The attorney for defendants Parks filed written objections to proposed findings. It may be stated generally that the objections were to findings which were to the effect that the sale was fairly conducted and made according to law; that the Vandernoots paid $7,308.45 to appellants as consideration for the note and trust deed, not there was not fraud. On the margin of the written objections, the judge wrote: 'Considered and denied.'

On November 17 findings were filed. There was one set of findings, and there were two judgments--the interlocutory judgment (discharging plaintiff from liability) and the judgment (determining the claims). Also on November 17, the judgment ^{2 2} was entered, which provided that the Vandernoots were entitled to $8,523.14 of the proceeds, and that defendant Abrahamer was entitled to $1 thereof. On November 21 an interlocutory judgment ³ (dated November 17) was entered, which provided that plaintiff was dismissed from the cause and discharged from all liability to all defendants with respect to the proceeds, and that defendants interplead and litigate their claims among themselves.

The findings were that the allegations of the amended complaint were true, and that the allegations of the answer of defendants Parks 'to the complaint herein' were not true, with the exception of certain allegations which it is not necessary to state here. The court also found that the sale was fairly conducted and made in compliance with all statutory requirements; and that defendants Vandernoot paid $7,308.45 to defendants Parks as consideration for the note and trust deed; and that no fraud was practiced on defendants Parks by plaintiff or defendants Vandernoot or defendant Abrahamer.

It thus appears that the interlocutory judgment was entered (November 21) four days after the judgment was entered (November 17).

As above stated, the appeal herein is from the interlocutory judgment.

Appellants (Parks) contend that the court made findings that were in excess of the scope of an action in interpleader. The findings so referred to are: (1) That the sale was fairly conducted and made in compliance with all statutory requirements; and (2) that the Vandernoots paid $7,308.45 to the Parks as consideration for the note and trust deed, and there was no fraud. Apparently the principal concern of appellants on this appeal is that, in their 'pending case' against the escrow company, the company might 'plead res judicata by virtue of the Findings to the effect that the sale was valid.' Appellants also assert in effect that the findings...