Wiscombe v. Lockhart Co., 16304
| Decision Date | 03 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16304,16304 |
| Citation | 608 P.2d 236 |
| Parties | J. Elmer WISCOMBE and Naomi B. Wiscombe, his wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The LOCKHART CO., Defendant and Appellant. The LOCKHART CO., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Neil J. BEARDALL et al., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
W. Clark Burt and Robert S. Prince, Callister, Greene & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Jackson Howard of Howard, Lewis & Peterson, Provo, for plaintiffs and respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court quieting title to certain real property in Plaintiffs and Respondents J. Elmer and Naomi B. Wiscombe (hereafter "Wiscombe") as against Defendant and Appellant Lockhart Company (hereafter "Lockhart"). We affirm. Costs to plaintiffs.
On January 1, 1976, one Beardall, not a party to this appeal, purchased by Uniform Real Estate Contract certain real property located in Mapleton, Utah County, from Wiscombe. The Contract called for annual payments of $15,000 payable on the first day of January of each year with an initial payment of $15,000 made at the time of execution. The $15,000 payment due on January 1, 1977, was not received by Wiscombe. By Notice of Default dated January 31, 1977, and served on Beardall on February 2, 1977, Wiscombe gave Beardall five days in which to remedy his default. Beardall did not do so and quit the premises on or before February 7, 1977.
Unknown to Wiscombe, Beardall had on November 5, 1976, executed and delivered to Lockhart a promissory note secured in part by an Assignment of Contract whereby Beardall assigned to Lockhart all of his rights, title and interest in and to the Uniform Real Estate Contract of January 1, 1976. Lockhart subsequently recorded the Assignment.
Wiscombe first became aware of the existence of the Assignment by way of an abstractor's letter he had ordered prepared on the property. Shortly after learning about the Assignment the letter report was dated February 14, 1977 Wiscombe's attorney wrote to Lockhart demanding that the Assignment be removed from the title to the subject real property. On March 1 and 2, 1977, Lockhart tendered Wiscombe $15,000 representing the payment due on January 1, 1977, under the Contract in question together with a tender of such additional costs and attorney's fees as had been incurred by Wiscombe. By letter dated March 7, 1977, Wiscombe rejected Lockhart's tender. Lockhart refused to remove the Assignment and so Wiscombe brought suit against Lockhart for slander of title and to quiet title in Wiscombe.
After trial held June 8, 1978, the District Court issued its Memorandum Decision on August 1, 1978, quieting title in Wiscombe but dismissing the claim for slander of the title and further denying Lockhart's counterclaim. Lockhart then brought this appeal.
Lockhart maintains that the District Court erred in not recognizing Lockhart's interest in the real property in question, which interest Lockhart declares arose as a result of the Assignment. We think the District Court was correct in its decision for the following reasons.
Fundamental to the law of assignments is the concept that an assignee takes nothing more by his assignment than his assignor had. In Tanner v. Lawler, 1 we stated:
An assignment merely sets over or transfers the interest of one party in certain property to another. Such an assignment does not have the effect of canceling any rights which other persons have in connection with such property. (footnote omitted) 2
The Uniform Real Estate Contract between Wiscombe and Beardall was properly foreclosed by Wiscombe in accordance with the terms of the Contract after Beardall's default. Beardall quit the premises in question on or before February 7, 1977, and so certainly after February 7, the Uniform Real Estate Contract had no further viability of its own. Title to the property remained in Wiscombe no longer subject to the Contract. 3
Lockhart's tender on March 1 and 2, 1977, was therefore wholly ineffectual because it came almost three weeks after the Contract terminated. There was nothing which could be performed by Lockhart by way of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Wilkinson
...at 679-80; Rush v. Anestos, 104 Idaho at 634, 661 P.2d at 1233, assign it to a third party as security for a loan, see Wiscombe v. Lockhart Co., 608 P.2d 236 (Utah 1980); Jeffs v. Citizens Finance Co., 7 Utah 106, 319 P.2d 858 (1958), or sell the interest by way of an assignment. See Hadloc......
-
First Sec. Bank of Utah N.A. v. Banberry Development Corp.
...Id.46 See, e.g., Dirks v. Cornwell, 754 P.2d 946, 949 (Utah Ct.App.1988); Jack B. Parson Cos., 751 P.2d at 1133; Wiscombe v. Lockhart Co., 608 P.2d 236, 238 (Utah 1980). But cf. Hadlock v. Showcase Real Estate, Inc., 680 P.2d 395, 397 (Utah 1984) (buyer's assignee entitled to notice prescri......
-
Dirks v. Cornwell
...The assignee-lender takes nothing more by his assignment than his assignor, the buyer, has. Nield, 751 P.2d at 1133; Wiscombe v. Lockhart Co., 608 P.2d 236, 238 (Utah 1980); Sanders, 443 P.2d at 232. Thus, his interest in the contract is "limited by the amount of equity held by the [buyer] ......
-
Gilbert Builders, Inc. v. Community Bank of DePere
...P.2d 597 (1984) (abandonment of vendee's interest in land sale contract extinguishes equitable mortgagee's interest); Wiscombe v. Lockhart Co., 608 P.2d 236 (Utah 1980); Sheehan v. McKinstry, 105 Or. 473, 210 P. 167 In Stageberg the court held that the lien of a judgment creditor, in the ab......