McLane v. Van Eaton

California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 1943 No. Civ. 14064Published

Before: Wood (W. J.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance because the vendor's prior acceptance of late payments waived the right to declare a forfeiture without notice, and the subsequent purchaser had constructive notice of the plaintiffs' interest.

Issues

Whether a vendor who accepts late payments may declare a forfeiture without prior notice of an intent to require strict performance.
Whether a purchaser of real property with constructive notice of a prior recorded executory contract is a purchaser in good faith.
Whether a vendee's failure to deposit the balance due in a bank precludes an action for specific performance when the vendor has refused the offer of payment.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since defendant Storr had constructive notice of the rights of Mattox and of plaintiffs he cannot be held to be a purchaser in good faith.”

“A vendor who accepts payments while his vendee is in arrears with respect to payments due suspends his right to declare a forfeiture”

“Her refusal to accept the offer, without any sufficient reason therefor, and without making a specific objection to the sufficiency thereof, made it unnecessary for plaintiffs to take further action.”

WOOD (W. J.), J.

Plaintiffs, assignees of the purchasers under an executory contract for the sale of a parcel of realty, commenced this action to compel specific performance by defendant Storr, to whom the vendor, Van Baton, had conveyed subsequent to the execution of the executory contract. The trial court denied specific performance and gave a money judgment against defendant Van Baton. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.

By the contract in question Mrs. Van Baton agreed to sell to John W. Mattox the lot in question for the sum of $318 payable at the rate of $10 per month on the fifteenth day of each month, the last payment becoming due on April 14, 1941. The contract was dated June 15,1938, and was recorded in the office of the county recorder on August 11,1938. Mattox assigned all of his interest in the contract to plaintiffs on May 15,1939, by an instrument in writing which was recorded on the same date. The purchasers were delinquent at various times in their monthly payments but all payments were made to Van Baton and accepted by her to March 1, 1941, on which date the payment of $10 due on February 15, 1941, was made. At that time the balance due was $20.23. Plaintiffs wrote a letter to defendant Van Baton under date of March 15, 1941,

[614]

informing her that they had purchased the property in question and stating that they wished to pay the balance due on the contract upon the delivery of the deed and certificate called for in the contract. To this Mrs. Van Baton replied by letter dated March 19, 1941, as follows: “Mr. Walter McLane 4300 Whittier Blvd. Los Angeles, Calif Dear Sir:— I would like very much to comply with your request to give Mr. Mattox a deed to the property at 451 So. Downey Rd. but that property is under attachment in a suit filed against Mattox by the California Mutual Discount Company, and I have been served with a court order prohibiting me from executing a deed and requiring that I hold title of the property for satisfaction of the claim upon which Mr. Mattox was sued. The amount of the claim is $318.00 with interest at 7% per annum from June 15, 1938, plus $75 attorney’s fees. The case number is 576545 in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles. Enclosed is. the card of the company which filed the attachment. Perhaps if you called them some kind of an arrangement can be worked out whereby the property could be released. Under the circumstances, there is nothing I can do until I receive a release from the court. Just for your information, I wrote Mr. Mattox many times during the past three years trying to effect a settlement with him, but was unable to get results. In fact he consistently ignored my letters and my demands. Some several months ago I sold my claim against him and now have nothing to do with the matter. Yours very truly (Mrs.) Clyde Van Baton.”

McLane v. Van Eaton

AI Brief

WOOD (W. J.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief