Opinion ID: 1123296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: estoppel by signing mortgage.

Text: Counsel for the appellants argue that Mrs. Dixon acted to her detriment by giving up a valuable right, namely by waiving her homestead right in the premises in question, and in reliance on her being named in the deed as one of the grantees therein; further, that without her consent the purchase could not have been completed. It was further argued at the oral argument in this court that when she signed the mortgage she agreed in the mortgage to pay the taxes thereon and so acted to her prejudice. Counsel think that these facts created an estoppel to question the validity of the deed herein. This matter is mentioned time and again. It is one of the main props upon which the contention for the right of reversal of the judgment herein is based. Counsel for respondents argue that since Mrs. Dixon did not plead an estoppel, which she did not do, no reliance may be had thereon. However, testimony on this matter was introduced without objection, so we shall disregard that point and shall not decide it. There are several answers to the contentions of appellants herein. Article 19, Section 9 of our Constitution provides, speaking of a homestead right, that: no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes, or for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said premises. In Powers vs. Pense, 20 Wyo. 327, 123 P. 925 it was held that a purchase money mortgage takes precedence of any homestead right. Hence, the mortgage in the case at bar was perfectly good and valid even though she had not waived her homestead right. She had none to waive against the purchase price of the land. By waiving it, she cannot have acted to her detriment. Furthermore, the Murray Ranch was not the homestead of Mrs. Dixon and her husband, and never became such. Hence, what we said in the case of Harney, Admr. vs. Montgomery, 29 Wyo. 362, 373, 213 P. 378 is applicable, namely that it must be quite clear that unless such homestead right is in existence at the time of the execution of such instrument, no mention would need to be made of such fact. A non-existent right need not be released. Again, if there was any estoppel in this case it would, it seems, be called an estoppel by conduct that arises where a person, against whom it is pleaded, by his conduct induces another person relying on such conduct to believe in the existence of a particular state of facts and to act thereon to his prejudice. 31 C.J.S. 240. Alvy Dixon himself was not guilty of any such conduct. Aside from the testimony of Rosemary Dixon which was discredited by the court, there is no evidence that Alvy Dixon knew that his wife ever signed the mortgage, let alone that she signed it in reliance on her name being placed in the deed. Whatever was done in that connection was done by an unauthorized act of an agent induced to some extent at least by Mrs. Dixon, herself. What Mrs. Dixon did was to affix a condition to the execution by her of the mortgage. But that was a one-sided action so far as Alvy Dixon was concerned, and was in no way binding upon him. McConnell had no power to accept it and act upon it, as will more clearly appear hereafter. The authority or agreement to affix such condition was lacking just as much as the authority to insert Mrs. Dixon's name in the deed. The authority to do the latter was dependent upon, and in fact interchangeable with, the authority of the former. We know of no law that such unauthorized affixation of a condition by one person can create an estoppel as against the person whose agreement or authority  original or by way of ratification  to affix such condition is required and is lacking. The trial court had the right to find that Mrs. Dixon's name was inserted in the deed without the consent of Alvy Dixon and in fact with her knowledge, and, hence, unlawfully. It would be strange, that she could make such unlawful act lawful by signing the mortgage in question because of an unauthorized affixation of a condition. If she wanted to make herself liable for the payment of taxes by signing the mortgage she did so at her own risk. Again it does not appear that she ever paid any taxes, and to hold that by the mere undertaking to make such payment she could acquire property worth $27,000, or perhaps $50,000 at the present time, would be carrying the principle of estoppel to an extreme to which we are unwilling to go. True, the testimony shows that the transaction would probably not have been completed if she had not signed the mortgage. If it had not been, the estate of the deceased would have had the cash. She would have had her one-fourth interest. If the cash had been dissipated in whole or in part she would have been the loser to that extent. If, on the other hand, the value of the land has increased, then her one-fourth interest is increased to that extent and instead of a detriment, she was benefited. In view of the fact  as everyone knows  that values or at least prices, of substantially every piece of property in the United States have vastly increased since 1941  we can hardly escape the conclusion that Mrs. Dixon, instead of sustaining a detriment, made, in view of her legal interest in the estate of Alvy Dixon, a substantial gain by finally consenting to sign the mortgage. Hence, looking at the matter from any aspect we wish, it is impossible to see how she has any right of complaint by reason of the foregoing matters.