Opinion ID: 2801496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶11 We are presented with two primary legal questions in this appeal. Initially, we must determine whether Boulton's post-suit tender of $5,000.00, with interest, was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 42 O.S. § 20. Plaintiff argues that the redemption statute requires payment of not only principal and interest, but also attorney fees and costs as damages under 42 O.S. § 20. Second, we must consider whether COCA's determination that Boulton's post-litigation remittance in furtherance of redemption clothed her with prevailing party status for purposes of awarding attorney fees and costs. Under Smith v. Robinson , Boulton's Effort to Redeem Her Property in the Foreclosure Action Was Complete Upon Payment of Both the Principal Lien Amount and Accumulated Interest. ¶12 Two statutes are initially implicated in this action. Title 42 O.S. § 18 provides that [e]very person having an interest in property subject to a lien, has a right to redeem it from the lien, at any time after the claim is due, and before his right of redemption is foreclosed. To redeem a lien, a party must follow the requirements of 42 O.S. § 20, which provides, [r]edemption from a lien is made by performing, or offering to perform, the act for the performance of which it is a security, and paying, or offering to pay, the damages, if any, to which the holder of the lien is entitled for delay. According to the COCA opinion in Boulton I , a valid lien was attached to the subject real property, and Boulton was to be afforded an opportunity to discharge the lien by complying with the aforementioned statutes. 7 ¶13 As noted, in Boulton II COCA initially affirmed the trial court's judgment. However, on rehearing, COCA entered its substitute opinion which found in favor of Boulton and awarded her prevailing party attorney fees. To reach this decision, COCA concluded that Benefiel refused to accept Boulton's tender of $5,000.00 plus interest. Additionally, COCA held that Boulton's tender was sufficient to redeem the judgment lien, citing Smith v. Robinson , 1979 OK 57, 594 P.2d 364. Applying the Smith holding, COCA found Boulton was entitled to judgment in her favor on the foreclosure claim. However, the facts and procedural posture of Smith are significantly different than those we are faced with today. ¶14 In Smith , Roberta Robinson and J.E. Smith entered into an oral agreement for work to be performed on Robinson's property. Id. ¶ 3, 594 P.2d at 365-366. Smith completed the job and provided an invoice for the work performed. Id. Thereafter, Smith perfected his mechanic's and materialman's lien for the unpaid contract price. Id. Five days later, Robinson tendered an offer to pay the invoice in full; however, Robinson's payment was conditioned on Smith's completion of a small minor detail. Id. ¶ 4, 594 P.2d at 366. Her offer additionally requested a lien release from Smith and any other contractors. Id. Smith declined to accept the offer because it did not include the attorney's fee or filing cost expended to perfect the lien. Id. Robinson later made a separate offer to pay the invoice in full without any additional conditions. Id. The second offer did not include the added costs associated with the lien filing or attorney's fee. Id. Again Smith declined the offer. Id. Two months later, Robinson discharged the lien in accordance with 42 O.S. 1971 § 147 (repealed 1982) by tendering the invoice amount and by posting a bond with the court clerk. Id. ¶15 A week after Robinson had discharged the lien, Smith filed suit against the homeowner. Id. ¶¶ 5-6, 594 P.2d at 366. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Robinson, but the decision was reversed by COCA on appeal. On certiorari, this Court framed the issues as follows: In this case we are called upon [to] answer the following questions: (a) is a landowner's pre-suit tender to contractor in redemption of the premises from a mechanic's and materialman's lien sufficient in law although it fails to include two expense items incurred in the filing of the lien? (b) if the tender so made, though adequate in law, be met with refusal and landowner then discharges the lien by complying with the procedure set forth in 42 O.S. 1971 § 147, does the prior tender continue to shield him from liability for court costs, including contractor's counsel fee, when contractor recovers in foreclosure suit the full amount claimed in the lien? and (c) if the landowner's pre-suit tender does in fact protect him from liability for costs, may he as the prevailing party, within the meaning of 42 O.S. 1971 § 176 , recover against the contractor for the services of his own attorney? Smith , ¶ 1, 594 P.2d at 365 (emphasis added)(footnote omitted). Looking to 42 O.S. 1971 §§ 18, 20 and 147, 8 the Smith decision concluded Robinson's tender met the statutory requirements for redemption in advance of suit. Id . ¶ 7, 594 P.2d at 366. ¶16 Unlike the homeowner in Smith , Boulton disputed the validity of the lien and did not tender the $5,000.00 obligation until December 2, 2011, more than three years after litigation over the lien was commenced. Moreover, Boulton did not submit a payment representing interest on the unpaid lien amount until June 22, 2012, more than a month after the trial judge pronounced judgment in favor of Plaintiff on remand. 9 Thus, we must determine whether these payments, although delayed, were sufficient to complete the redemption process and discharge Plaintiff's judgment lien. ¶17 According to our prior decisions, [t]he redemptive right is not extinguished at the time of sale but rather when the order of sale is confirmed. Sooner Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Okla. Cent. Credit Union , 1989 OK 170, ¶ 11, 790 P.2d 526, 529. Thus, Boulton still had a right to redeem the property in this case, even after the foreclosure judgment was entered. Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains that to redeem the subject property by way of 42 O.S. § 20, Boulton was required to tender the principal amount of the lien, together with interest, attorney fees, and costs. He posits that under 42 O.S. § 20, the term damages must include the expenses of litigation. We disagree. Our decision in Smith is controlling over the outcome of this issue, wherein we explained: By the terms of 42 O.S. 1971 §§ 18 and 20 a person may redeem his property from a lien by offering to pay the obligation for which the lien stands as security together with allowable damages for delay. This is the very amount landowner tendered in her redemption attempt. This much and nothing more is statutorily required to effect a valid redemption in advance of a suit. Absent a different contractual arrangement, damages recoverable for breach of obligation to pay money only is the amount due, with interest thereon. 23 O.S. 1971 § 22. Smith , ¶ 7, 549 P.2d at 366. Although the above-quoted passage from Smith applies to a redemption effort in advance of suit, we believe the outcome is no different in this case. Absent a contractual obligation to pay attorney fees and costs, Boulton needed only to tender the principal debt and interest. She was not required to pay attorney fees and costs to complete redemption of the real property. Upon tender of both the principal balance and interest, Boulton successfully discharged the judgment lien. Nevertheless, we find it was erroneous for COCA to conclude Boulton was entitled to entry of judgment in her favor on the foreclosure claim. While Boulton may have successfully redeemed the property by tendering payment under Section 20, she cannot be characterized as the prevailing party on the foreclosure claim. Both Parties Prevailed on Distinct Claims for Purposes of Any Trial or Appeal-Related Attorney Fee Claims. ¶18 As noted previously, COCA concluded that despite forcing Plaintiff to litigate the validity of the lien, Boulton was the prevailing party, and therefore, entitled to recover her attorney fees under 42 O.S. 2001 § 176. Title 42 O.S. 2011 § 176 provides: In an action brought to enforce any lien the party for whom judgment is rendered shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court, which shall be taxed as costs in the action. Because the redemption in this case occurred three and a half years after litigation was commenced, and after the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Smith is distinguishable on the issue of attorney fees under § 147: Our law is clear that where, as here, obligee's recovery does not exceed the amount of the tender, a legal tender will operate to relieve the debtor of liability for interest accruing thereafter and for costs afterwards incurred. Contractor's claim to an attorney's fee seems to be based on his argument that the terms of 42 O.S. 1971 § 147 assure him of a reasonable attorney's fee upon recovery of the full amount of the cash deposited. We cannot accede to that view. The cited section may not be invoked to negate the effect of a pre-suit tender . A contrary holding would effectively defeat a property owner's redemption rights under 42 O.S. 1971 §§ 18 and 20. It would enable lienors, by indirection, to postpone the time of redemption beyond pre-suit tender and exact a price for the lienee's exercise of this right in direct violation of 42 O.S. 1971 § 11. Smith , ¶¶ 9-10, 594 P.2d at 367 (emphasis added)(footnotes omitted). Consequently, we hold Plaintiff should be considered the prevailing party on his foreclosure claim. ¶19 However, our analysis does not end there. Count I in Plaintiff's Petition sought to quiet title to the real property under the reversionary clause of Plaintiff's divorce decree. Plaintiff spent considerable effort pursuing outright title to the property. The COCA, in Boulton I , held that the reversionary clause contained in the Benefiels' divorce decree was void and unenforceable. Consequently, we conclude Boulton successfully defended Plaintiff's quiet title claim, and she is the prevailing party on that issue. See Tomahawk Resources, Inc. v. Craven , 2005 OK 82, ¶ 6, 130 P.3d 222, 223-224 (holding both parties had prevailed on distinct claims and that each was entitled to attorney fees and costs in relation to those claims).