Beck v. Combs

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 1959 No. Civ. 9522Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the vendors could not declare a forfeiture or quiet title without first tendering a deed because the full balance of the contract was due, and that the purchasers were not bona fide purchasers because they had notice of the defendant's possession. Furthermore, the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the defendant was entitled to relief from forfeiture under Civil Code section 3275.

Issues

Whether a vendor may declare a forfeiture or quiet title without tendering a deed when the full balance of a land sale contract is due.
Whether the purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant or consider relief from forfeiture under Civil Code section 3275.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“They knew that Mrs. Broyles was in possession of the property. They never ascertained whether or not she claimed any right to the property. As such they could not be bona fide purchasers for value without notice”

“In the instant case the trial court was obligated to consider the issue of relief from forfeiture since it was put in issue by the pleadings. Failure to do so was reversible error.”

SCHOTTKY, J.

Myrtle Broyles Combs, .formerly. Myrtle Broyles, has appealed from a judgment in favor of tbe-. above-named plaintiffs [William 0. Beck and. Florence?.Beck-] in an .action-to quiet title tp; ..certain real p$.0-B-erty,4p.:;;^Iodesto;

• The record shows that, in Mays 1948-, Myrtle Broyles entered into ■a*'conditional sales contract"with-.John?.-Frazier and his wife-; Elsie'L.'Frazier, whereby the. Fraziers agreed-to' sell and Mrs. Broyles agreed to purchase an uninipfóvéd' parcel of real property' in Modesto for' the sum óf '$'650;' payable $10 down and' the'balance in installments óf $10 per month, including interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the deferred balance. Mrs. Broyles made the down payment and a few of the monthly-payments on time, but for the balance of the payments she was continually delinquent. The Fraziers-sent-Mrs.. Broyles several notices of default but thereafter accepted payments from her. The last payment made by her. was in November, 1953, and the last credit on the loan was an insurance refund, of-$7.68. This made the total balance due $163.83," plus interest from June 1, 1953. After Mrs. Broyles purchased the.propr

[585]

erty she erected a small five room house on it. She estimated the value of the property to be between $1,500 arid $2,000.

In November, 1954, the Fraziers mailed a notice of default to Mrs. Broyles,' and in January of 1955 a notice of forfeiture was mailed. This last notice stated that all of Mrs. Broyles’ rights under the contract had been terminated. Mr. Frazier testified that Mrs. Broyles never contacted him thereafter nor was he ever advised that she was willing to pay the balance due before he sold the property to the Becks.

The Becks purchased the property several months after January, 1955, for the sum of $765, which included the closing costs. When he purchased the property Mr. Beck knew that Mrs. Broyles was living on the property, and it was his understanding that he would have to get her off of the property. In January, 1956, the Becks brought this suit to quiet their title to the property. Mrs. Broyles answered and as a separate defense and by way of cross-complaint sought relief from forfeiture. It was uncontradicted that at the time of trial of this action the sum of $635 was deposited in escrow, which was for the purpose of paying the balance due on the contract.

Beck v. Combs

AI Brief

SCHOTTKY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief