Title: Shotzman v. Ward
Citation: 172 Kan. 272, 239 P.2d 935
Docket Number: 38,497
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 1952

172 Kan. 272 (1952)
239 P.2d 935
MARY SHOTZMAN and JEAN M. SHOTZMAN, Appellants,
v.
N.J. WARD, Appellee.
No. 38,497

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 26, 1952.
R.L. Hamilton, of Beloit, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellants.
Ward D. Martin, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Guy E. Ward, of Beverly Hills, California, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
The plaintiffs Mary Shotzman and Jean M. Shotzman, her son, brought this action on April 28, 1950, claiming they were entitled to repurchase 452 acres of land, formerly owned by *273 the first named plaintiff and deeded by her to the defendant, N.J. Ward, under the terms of an option contract entered into between Mrs. Shotzman and Ward on the date of the execution and delivery of the conveying instrument. Plaintiffs also sought an accounting but that question is not now involved because, by agreement of the parties, the issue submitted and tried by the trial court was whether the plaintiffs, or either of them, were entitled to additional time in which to repurchase the real estate notwithstanding the time fixed by the terms of the option agreement in which to take that action had expired. The trial court decided the issue thus tried against plaintiffs and rendered judgment against them quieting defendant's title in and to all real estate involved in the action and holding the only right either of the plaintiffs had therein was that Mary Shotzman was tenant of defendant by sufferance of a portion thereof amounting to approximately 100 acres. The plaintiffs have appealed from such judgment.
At the outset it can be said that this is a case where detailed reference to the pleadings of the respective parties is not necessary to a proper understanding of the factual situation or required to dispose of the appellate issues involved. In their petition plaintiffs concede that on August 3, 1946, Mary Shotzman joined with N.J. Ward in executing the option contract which is appended to and made a part of this opinion. They also admit that pursuant to its terms she conveyed the land therein described and here in question to him by quitclaim deed, that thereafter he redeemed such real estate from foreclosure sale in conformity with its terms, and that they did not repurchase such land from him between February 1, 1949, and February 15, 1949, as therein required. Plaintiffs then, without expressly stating they were ever ready, willing, or able to exercise the option granted Mrs. Shotzman under the terms of the agreement or had done so, allege in such pleading in substance that defendant was acting as Mrs. Shotzman's attorney at the time of the execution of the contract; that she was induced to sign it by reason of that relationship; that its terms were unjust and unfair and that after she had signed it Ward, although repeatedly requested by both of the plaintiffs to do so, refused to advise them of the amount necessary and required to redeem the land. Finally the petition alleges that because defendant had refused and neglected to comply with the terms of the contract by furnishing a statement of his expenditures in the amount due him under the contract plaintiffs have been unable to pay or tender him the *274 amount owing him under its terms, thus depriving them of their right to redeem or repurchase. It then asks for an accounting to determine the amount due and the right to repurchase the property for that amount.
The answer filed by defendant admits he is a duly licensed attorney but denies, under oath, allegations of the petition to the effect he was acting in that capacity at the time of the transactions in question. In addition it denies generally all averments of the petition not expressly admitted. It alleges execution of the contract, receipt of the quitclaim deed from Mrs. Shotzman, redemption of the property from foreclosure sale and possession and ownership of such property since August 3, 1946. It also avers the contract was fairly entered into and denies that prior to February 14, 1949, Mrs. Shotzman or any one on her behalf or any one else having the right to do so under the terms of the contract ever asked for the amount necessary to repurchase the premises. Finally it asserts that Jean Shotzman never had any rights in the property and that from and after August 3, 1946, Mary Shotzman had no rights therein except under the contract and that the only right she now has to any part thereof is occupancy of the portion leased to her under its terms.
Plaintiffs' reply denies generally all allegations of the answer inconsistent with the theory on which they base their right to relief.
With issues joined as just related the cause was tried by the court on the agreed limited issue whether plaintiffs, or either of them, were entitled to additional time in which to purchase the land. At the close of the trial on this issue the trial court made tentative findings to the effect the contract as executed was between attorney and client and therefore Mrs. Shotzman as a matter of equity was entitled to have the amount necessary for the repurchase of the real estate determined and an opportunity to repurchase the same. Following divers objections to the tentative findings the court reconsidered the cause at the same term at which it was tried and announced it had become convinced the tentative findings as made were erroneous and that it was its duty to make what it believed to be correct conclusions and enter judgment for the defendant. Thereupon it made new findings of fact. From those facts it then made conclusions of law and rendered judgment, as it had indicated it should do, denying plaintiffs any relief whatsoever, quieting the defendant's title to the real estate, and directing that plaintiffs pay the costs of the action.
*275 The findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the trial court based its judgment are so extensive and in such form that they can be used to serve the dual purpose of giving a bird's-eye view of a somewhat complicated factual picture as well as its version of the essential facts established by the evidence and for that reason should be quoted at length. They read:
"CONCLUSIONS OR FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After the foregoing findings and conclusions were handed down the plaintiffs filed a motion to set them aside on grounds they were contrary to and not supported by the evidence and were contrary to law and equity. They also filed a motion for judgment on the evidence notwithstanding such findings and conclusions. When these motions were overruled and judgment was rendered as heretofore indicated they filed a motion for a new trial which was likewise overruled. Thereupon they perfected this appeal.
Questions appellants say are involved under their specification of errors can be separated, discussed, and disposed of in groups.
At the outset, giving much time and space to the question in their briefs, they insist the trial court erred in setting aside its tentative findings of fact and conclusions of law. This claim of error has little merit and can be disposed of speedily.
In Rasing v. Healzer, 157 Kan. 516, 142 P.2d 832, we gave consideration to a question somewhat similar to the one now before us and held:
The rule announced in the foregoing case has been repeatedly and consistently followed by this court. For just a few of our decisions, containing numerous citations of authorities, wherein the inherent power of the district court to control its own judgments during the term has been discussed and the rule adhered to in Rasing v. Healzer, supra, is recognized and approved see Hoffman *279 v. Hoffman, 156 Kan. 647, 135 P.2d 887; Gray v. Hercules Powder Co., 160 Kan. 767, 779, 165 P.2d 447. Numerous decisions to the same effect, if desired, will be found in West's Kansas Digest, Judgment, § 341 and Hatcher's Kansas Digest, Judgment, §§ 228, 241.
See, also, Standard Life Ass'n v. Merrill, 147 Kan. 121, 75 P.2d 825, which not only adheres to the rule but holds that when an order or judgment is vacated during the term, the previously existing status of the case is restored, the situation is the same as though the order or judgment had never been made, and the issues stand again for trial or for such other disposition as may be appropriate to the situation. Thus, based upon this decision and others to which we have heretofore referred, it becomes apparent that where  as here  a trial court has made certain tentative findings and conclusions and then changed its mind and made other findings and conclusions contrary thereto and rendered judgment thereon, the question involved on appeal from such judgment is not whether the first findings and conclusions were proper but whether those on which the final judgment was actually based are supported by the evidence and the law.
The next two questions raised by appellants have to do with the sufficiency of the findings of fact and in particular findings Nos. 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20 and the last sentence of No. 6. The burden of their claim with respect to such findings is that they are not supported by the evidence.
No rule is better established in this jurisdiction than the one that findings of fact supported by substantial competent evidence are conclusive and will not be disturbed on appellate review even though the record discloses some evidence which might have warranted the trial court in making findings to the contrary. For some of our more recent decisions where the rule is discussed, applied, and adhered to, see In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 613, 192 P.2d 177; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737, 208 P.2d 209; Oetken v. Shell, 168 Kan. 244, 248, 212 P.2d 329; In re Estate of Spark, 168 Kan. 270, 212 P.2d 369; In re Estate of Anderson, 168 Kan. 299, 212 P.2d 375; State, ex rel., v. Rural High School District No. 3, 169 Kan. 671, 677, 220 P.2d 164. Many other decisions of like import are cited in West's Kansas Digest, Appeal &amp; Error, §§ 1010(1), 1011(1); Hatcher's Kansas Digest, Appeal &amp; Error, §§ 507, 508.
Touching the sufficiency of the evidence to support the foregoing findings, and others to which no specific reference has been made, we are not disposed to labor a long and tedious record. It suffices *280 to say that after reviewing all the evidence, in the light of the rule to which we have heretofore referred, we are constrained to hold there is substantial competent testimony to support each and every finding made by the trial court. The result, as we have heretofore indicated, is that such findings must be accepted as made and cannot be disturbed.
Having determined the force and effect to be given the findings as the factual basis on which our decision must rest we are next confronted with the correctness of the conclusions of law and the subsequent judgment rendered by the trial court.
When carefully analyzed, except for a question involving the extent of the judgment to be mentioned later, it can be said that none of appellants' arguments regarding the errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court in making its conclusions of law and in rendering the judgment itself question the legal principle that time is of the essence of an option contract to repurchase real estate and that acceptance must be made and conditions performed within the time specified therein in order to compel its performance (see 66 C.J., Vendor and Purchaser, 496, 497 §§ 19, 20, 21, 22; 55 Am. Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, 506 to 511 incl. §§ 38, 39 40; Anderson v. Ericson, 149 Kan. 270, 273, 87 P.2d 540). On the contrary all claims advanced by them respecting such alleged errors are predicated upon the bases, that notwithstanding the rule to which we have referred, they are excused from performance of the instant contract within the time specified therein because the evidence discloses (1) that a fiduciary relationship existed between the appellee and Mrs. Shotzman on all dates in question, and (2) that they were prevented from exercising the option by the acts and conduct of the appellee himself. We are not here called upon to write a thesis upon the subject whether either of the two factual situations relied on by appellants would excuse performance of the contract or afford grounds for the equitable relief sought by them in the case at bar. It suffices to say the basic trouble with all of the claims which they advance in support of their position on the subject now under consideration is that the trial court, as we have heretofore pointed out, found the facts on which they rely as the bases for their position against them and that under those circumstances their contentions to the effect they are excused from conforming with the terms of the option agreement lack merit and furnish no sound ground for holding that the trial court erred in its conclusions of law or in its judgment.
*281 The conclusion just announced brings us to another contention touching the propriety of conclusion of law No. 8 in which the trial court found appellee was entitled to have his title quieted in the land as against appellant, Mary Shotzman. Based on this conclusion the judgment recites that such appellant is a tenant by sufferance of the 100 acres of real estate to which reference was made early in this opinion. It is claimed this portion of the judgment is erroneous because the evidence discloses that she is holding over as a tenant from year to year. We do not agree. The contract expressly provides that whatever rights she had as a tenant expired on the same date as her rights to repurchase the property, namely, the 15th of February, 1949. Under the evidence it is clear that since that date she has been holding the premises under a claim of ownership and has repudiated whatever rights she may have had as a tenant. In such a situation the trial court, after finding she had no rights as owner, properly concluded she was occupying the portion of the premises in question by sufferance. Whether that occupancy was as a tenant, or otherwise, is of little moment. Even if the court was wrong in deciding her status was that of a tenant, a point we need not here decide, that error did not affect her substantial rights and hence affords no sound ground (see State, ex rel., v. Rural High School District No. 3, supra) for a reversal of the judgment.
Although not spelled out in this opinion, because of lack of merit or materiality in view of the conclusions herein announced, it should perhaps be stated that numerous other contentions advanced by the appellants' astute and industrious counsel as grounds for reversal of the judgment have been reviewed, considered, and rejected.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
CONTRACT