Youngs v. Burleson, 111.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 111.,111. |
| Citation | 264 N.W. 317,274 Mich. 132 |
| Parties | YOUNGS v. BURLESON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit for extension of moratorium stay in foreclosure proceeding by Florence M. Youngs, as the surviving widow of Dan Youngs, deceased, against Mary C. Burleson and another. From an order granting the stay, the defendants appeal.
Order set aside, and case remanded, with directions.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
J. Thomas Mahan, of Holland, for appellants.
Joseph R. Gillard, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
On December 28, 1925, Dan and Florence M. Youngs executed a mortgage of $23,500 to Mary C. Burleson on property opposite the post office at the southeast corner of Division avenue and Lyon street in Grand Rapids, with two old apartment houses and a small dwelling house situated thereon. Upon default in payments, foreclosure by advertisement was begun, and on November 4, 1932, the property was bid in by Mary C. Burleson for $26,074.25, the amount then due her for principal, interest, and taxes paid by her. On October 5, 1933, upon the filing of a bill of complaint for a moratorium by Florence M. Youngs as survivor of herself and Dan Youngs, the court issued an injunction, the nature of which is not shown by the record. On January 31, 1934, an order was entered continuing the injunction to March 1, 1935, or until the further order of the court, transferring the foreclosure suit to the chancery side of the court, extending plaintiff's equity of redemption to March 1, 1935, enjoining the issuance of a writ of restitution until that time and fixing the fair rental value of the property at $30 per month, beginning February 1, 1934. As no appeal was taken from this order, we need not consider questions that might have been raised. On February 28, 1935, however, plaintiff filed another bill of complaint under Act No. 3, Pub. Acts 1935, amendatory of the Mortgage Moratorium Act effective February 26, 1935, seeking an extension of the moratorium until March 1, 1937, upon the same terms as provided in the former order. On March 15, 1935, Ellen B. Goodlin, who had previously acquired the interest of the mortgagee, Mary C. Burleson, was added as a party defendant. Defendants in their answer stress the inequity of such further extension, and contend that under the act no further moratorium is justified.
The meager testimony embraced in only 11 pages of record, together with the undenied statements in the bill of complaint and answer, indicate that the house and buildings contain a total of 14 apartments, or thereabouts, rented for about $15 per month. Plaintiff occupies the best apartment. The buildings are very old and in need of repair or renovation. Plaintiff and her daughter own other property, which evidently does not bring in any surplus income over the fixed charges. No taxes have been paid by them on the property involved in the instant case since 1930. The insurance was canceled when the foreclosure proceedings were instituted. Ten of the apartments are occupied by families on relief; the rent being paid by the city. Plaintiff's daughter testified that, while she believed that the property might be sold for the amount of the mortgage, it had not been offered to possible buyers at a price below $40,000. During the year prior to the hearing, $1,986.28 had been received in rentals from the property, but $1,652.42 had been expended for janitor service, heat, gas, electricity, and minor repairs, so that, after the payment of $30 per month for the ten months prior to the hearing to defendant, there was only a small sum left for plaintiff, who also occupied an apartment in the building. The testimony of a realtor showed that the age of the frame house is from 45 to 50 years, that of the red brick building west of it 40 to 45 years, while that of the yellow brick building still further to the west is about 60 years; that the buildings are practically obsolete, both physically and from the standpoint of usability; that the land is only fit for commercial or industrial use; that many of the apartments are heated by stove, although there are old furnaces in the buildings and the cost of renovating the buildings so as to make them bring in better return would exceed their present worth; that they have a hopeless future for residence purposes and the loss will be continuing, if so used; that it would be far better to tear them down, and then possibly realize $60 per month from the property as a parking lot.
From the time of the foreclosure sale to that of the hearing, additional interest for over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lutz v. Dutmer
...v. Hudson, 266 Mich. 644, 254 N.W. 234,Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Harry & Max Dunitz, Inc., 273 Mich. 607, 263 N.W. 751;Youngs v. Burleson, 274 Mich. 132, 264 N.W. 317;Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kovinsky, 277 Mich. 163, 269 N.W. 129. There is nothing to indicate the trial court ......
-
Makar v. Peoples Wayne Cnty. Bank of Dearborn
...sold at distress prices occasioned by an economic emergency, and to give mortgagors a chance to preserve their equities. Youngs v. Burleson, 274 Mich. 132, 264 N.W. 317. Where defendant's debt will not grow larger during the moratorium period and there appears to be an equity that plaintiff......
-
Benkert v. Gruenewald
...statutes, are illustrative of the factors that bear upon the exercise of a court's discretion in this respect: Youngs v. Burleson et al., 274 Mich. 132, 264 N. W. 317;Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Wilmarth, 218 Iowa, 339, 252 N.W. 507, 94 A.L.R. 1338;Luikart v. Graf, 130 Neb. 736, 266 N.W. ......
- Reichert v. State Sav. Bank of Royal Oak