Busey v. Moraga

California Supreme Court Dec 1, 1900 No. S.F. No. 1717.Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an equitable action to reform a mortgage and foreclosure decree based on a mutual mistake in property description is maintainable, and that the evidence established such a mutual mistake where the parties intended to mortgage specific property despite an erroneous block designation.

Issues

Whether an independent equitable action for the reformation of a mortgage and foreclosure decree is maintainable when a remedy by motion might exist in the original case.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the absence of a mutual mistake were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if there was a mistake in the mortgage in the description of the property, and the same mistake exists in the decree and the sheriff’s deed, equity will go back to the-original transaction and reform all three”

“The findings that there was not a mutual mistake in the of the lots, and that the understanding was not that the defendants were mortgaging the lots in block K, are not justified by the evidence.”

Synopsis

Mistake in Mortgage, Decree, and Sheriff’s Deed—Reformation in Equity—Remedy by Motion.—Where there is a mistake in the description of property in a mortgage, and the same mistake has been carried into the decree of foreclosure and the sheriff’s deed, conceding that relief might have been granted by motion in the original case, a court of equity has jurisdiction to go back to the original transaction and to reform the mortgage, as well as the decree and deed, so as to make them conform to the original intention of the parties.

Id.—Power of Equity to Order Resale.—If justice requires it, it is in the power of a court of equity, after reforming the mortgage and the decree and order of sale, to direct a new notice and sale of the property.

Id.—Location of Town Lots—Error in Block—Mutual Mistake— Finding Against Evidence.—A finding made by the court that there was no mutual mistake of the parties, but only a mistake of the mortgagor in copying from the description in a first mortgage, which showed an erroneous location of town lots owned by the mortgagors, as being in block “H,” whereas the only lots owned by them were In block “K,” held to be against the evidence, which showed that the mortgagors intended to mortgage the town lots owned by them, and believed that they were included in plaintiff’s mortgage and decree o£ foreclosure, as well as in the first mortgage, which was also foreclosed in the same action, and that, so believing, the mortgagors made default and consented to the foreclosure, and did not discover the mistake in the description until after the sale under the foreclosure.

Id.—Estoppel op Mortgagors.—The mortgagors are estopped by the mortgage from denying that they executed it; and where it appears that they consented to a decree of foreclosure on the understanding that both of the mortgages foreclosed included the property owned by them, they are estopped from denying that there was a mistake on their part in the description of the property, and from asserting that they gave a mortgage upon property which they did not own.

HAYNES, C.

Appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendants were the owners of three several tracts of farming land in Contra Costa county, and also of lots 7, 13, and 14, in block K, in the town of Concord, in said county, which lots are also referred to in the record as “the Neff property.” Prior to March 31, 1895, defendants mortgaged two of the tracts of ^farming land, and three town lots in said Concord, described in mortgage as “lots 7,13, and 14, in block H,” to Andrew Gehringer (since deceased), and the third tract of farming land to Thomas and Mary A. Moore. On March 31, 1895, the defendants, being indebted to plaintiff in the sum of one thousand and fifty dollars and fifty cents, executed to him a mortgage upo A all three of said tracts of farming land, and also upon tora lots described as in the Gehringer mortgage.

In April, 1897, none of said mortgages having been paid or released, the plaintiff brought suit to foreclose his said mort

[588]

gage, and made the executors of Gehringer and the Moores parties defendant, and all said mortgages were foreclosed, the decree directing that the several parcels of land be sold separately. Said town lots were described in the decree as lots 7, 13, and 14, in block H. At a sale of said several parcels of land under said decree, the executors of Gehringer, as individuals, became the purchasers of the two tracts of farming land described in his mortgage, for the amount found due the 'estate, the Moores purchased the tract described in their mortgage for the amounts found due to them, and the plaintiff became the purchaser of the town lots. Said sales were made on February 15, 1897. In the decree, notice of sale, and certificate of sale, said town lots were described as in the mortgage. The alleged error in the description of the town lots was discovered about two months after the sale, and this action was brought on April 23, 1897, to reform the mortgage, decree and certificate of sale, so as to describe said lots as being in block K instead of block H.

The complaint alleged that there was a mutual mistake of the parties to plaintiff’s mortgage in the description of the lots.

Defendants demurred to the complaint and the demurrer was overruled. Bespondents contend that it should have been sustained, because plaintiff had a remedy by motion in the original case, and that therefore an action to reform the proceedings will not li'e.

Busey v. Moraga

AI Brief

Synopsis

HAYNES, C.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief