Title: Lamont v. Evjen
Citation: 29 Utah 2d 266, 508 P.2d 532
Docket Number: 13077
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: April 5, 1973

508 P.2d 532 (1973) 29 Utah 2d 266 James H. LAMONT and Lotte Lamont, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Ivar Th. EVJEN and Aslaugh S. Evjen, his wife, Defendants and Respondents. No. 13077. Supreme Court of Utah. April 5, 1973. *533 Morgan, Scalley, Lunt &amp; Kesler, Grant S. Kesler, Robert S. Howell, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants. James A. McIntyre, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents. ELLETT, Justice: This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendants in an action to foreclose a uniform real estate contract by treating it as a mortgage pursuant to paragraph 16(c), which reads: The contract was signed February 15, 1960, and defendants made regular payments of $110.00 per month to the First Federal Savings &amp; Loan Association as collecting agent for the plaintiffs, the sellers. The payment for December, 1970, was not made until January 4, 1971, and thereafter the defendants as buyers made regular monthly payments. Neither the First Federal Savings, the sellers (plaintiffs), nor the buyers (defendants) knew a payment had been missed for over one year. On February 2, 1972, the chief accountant of the collecting agency wrote a letter to the defendants stating that the payment for December, 1970, had been missed and that all payments subsequent thereto were made late. The letter requested the defendants "to please see if you cannot arrange to bring your contract payments up to date." Under date of February 29, 1972, the lawyer for the plaintiffs wrote a letter which was delivered to the defendants March 6, 1972. The letter contained the following language: On March 31, 1972, the plaintiffs mailed a certified letter to the defendants stating that they were electing to treat the uniform real estate contract "as a note and mortgage and foreclose upon the same immediately, the entire unpaid balance becoming due and payable." In their briefs both counsel state that this letter was receipted for by the defendants April 3, 1972. On April 3, 1972, the defendants tendered all past due installments to the plaintiffs. The evidence does not show whether the tender was made before or after the receipt of the letter by the defendants. The trial court found as a fact: And then concluded as a matter of law: In the case of Romero v. Schmidt[1] the question of the effect of a tender upon the right of a plaintiff to foreclose pursuant to the option in a uniform real estate contract was before this court. We there held that a valid tender prevented the plaintiff from foreclosing on the contract as a note and mortgage. See Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Washington, 108 Utah 469, 161 P.2d 355 (1945); also see 52 Am.Jur., Tender, § 41. Before a seller of land under a uniform real estate contract can exercise any of the options given him because of a failure on the part of the purchaser to pay an installment as promised, he must give the purchaser notice of the default and a reasonable time in which to bring the contract current. The reason for the rule is set forth in 52 Am.Jur., Tender, § 41, as follows: The rule is especially applicable in cases like the instant one where the default was overlooked by all parties for some fifteen months. It appears that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they gave notice to the defendants of their election to treat the contract as a note and mortgage prior to a full tender of the amount due. Besides, the defendants were not given a reasonable time in which to make good the delinquent installment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondents. CALLISTER, C.J., and CROCKETT, HENRIOD and TUCKETT, JJ., concur. [1] 15 Utah 2d 300, 392 P.2d 37 (1964).