Court Opinion

ID: 6905405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:59:31.141209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:19.643624
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. It is conceded that the proper amount of money was tendered for redemption purposes within the statutory time. The only question presented is the right of Higgs to compel redemption. We quote the following sections from Lord’s Oregon Laws:
“A lien upon real or personal property, other than that of a judgment or decree, whether created by mortgage or otherwise, shall be foreclosed, and the property adjudged to be sold to satisfy the debt secured thereby by a suit. In such suit,- in addition to the decree of foreclosure and sale, if it appear that a promissory note or other personal obligation for the payment of the debt has been given by the mortgagor or other lien debtor, or by any other person as principal or otherwise, the court shall also decree a recovery of the amount of such debt against such person or persons, as the case may be, as in the case of an ordinary decree for the recovery of money”: Section 422.
“Any person having a lien subsequent to the plaintiff upon the same property or any part thereof, or who has given a promissory note or other personal *261obligation for tbe payment of the debt, or any part thereof, secured by the mortgage or other lien which is the subject of the suit, shall be made a defendant in the suit, and any person having a prior lien may be made defendant at the option of the plaintiff, or by * * order of the court when deemed necessary”: Section 423.
“A decree of foreclosure shall have the effect to bar the equity of redemption, and property sold on execution issued upon a decree may be redeemed in like manner and with like effect as property sold on an execution issued on a judgment, and not otherwise”: Section 427.
“Property sold subject to redemption, as provided in the last section, or any part thereof separately sold, may be redeemed by the following persons or their successors in interest: 1. The judgment debtor or his successor in interest, in the whole or any part of the property separately sold; 2. A creditor having a lien by judgment, decree, or mortgage on any portion of the property, or any portion of any part thereof, separately sold, subsequent in time to that on which the property was sold. The persons mentioned in subdivision 2 of this section, after having redeemed the property, are to be termed redemptioners”: Section 245.
The right of redemption after decree, being statutory only, our sole task is to construe the Oregon legislation on the subject and apply it to the facts about which there is no substantial dispute.
Higgs claims a right to redeem in a dual character, first, as a judgment debtor, and, second, as a lien creditor; that is to say, as assignee of Strong. It is necessary to consider only his rights as a judgment debtor. He was made a defendant under that portion of Section 422, L. O. L., referring to a promissory note or personal obligation for the payment of the debt whether given by any person as principal, or other*262wise. In pursuance thereof the court foreclosed the mortgages, rendered a- personal decree against him for the amounts due, in the first case as the maker of the note there involved, and in the other as the indorser of the one originally given to himself. He was thus unquestionably a judgment debtor within the meaning of the statute. Although the mortgage he gave was for the purchase price of the land, he is none the less for the purposes of this case a judgment debtor under the decree, and the fact that no deficiency judgment could have been rendered against him in that proceeding does not alter the question. He comes clearly within the section of the Code allowing him to redeem.
2, 3. It is argued that he lost this right by having previously conveyed the premises to "Winnard and Goodman. This is a misconception of the law, as well as the terms of the deed. The right to redeem had never yet arisen. It was not then in being. No such person as a judgment debtor or redemptioner had entered into the calculation. All he conveyed to Winnard and Goodman was the equity of redemption. The deed was made expressly subject to the mortgage encumbrance upon the land and the grantees therein covenanted to pay the same. In. taking the quitclaim deed from the trustee in bankruptcy after the sale Mahoney took nothing, for the estate of the bankrupt being subject to the mortgage was barred under the terms of Section 427, L. O. L. Neither the trustee nor his bankrupt was personally liable for the debt, and therefore were not judgment debtors within the meaning of the statute. .Neither the trustee nor any of his grantors were “successors in interest” of the “judgment debtor,” because when they bought there Was no such personage to succeed. They acquired an *263estate containing within itself by the terms of the instrument creating it the elements which afterward worked out its dissolution. This was accomplished by the foreclosure, and all the interest they had was eliminated by that procedure under Section 427, L. O. L.
The rig’ht of redemption is a creature of the statute, and, as applied to the instant case, arises only after a sale upon a decree including a personal judgment against a defendant. When this right accrues, it may be transferred by the judgment debtor to anyone, and the latter thus becomes a successor in interest. Evidently it is to such a person purchasing from the judgment debtor after the sale that the redemption section refers in speaking of the “judgment debtor or his successor in interest.” The foreclosure extinguished all titles junior to the mortgages. None of the previous holders having such estates could redeem, as none of them is in the category of redemptioners. That litigation stripped the land of all claims subsequent to the mortgages and offered the naked legal title for sale so as to create a fund to which alone they could look for payment. The land was subject to redemption by the judgment debtor who came into being at the rendition of the decree, and not before. This individual, having no existence prior to the decree with its feature of personal judgment, is the only one entitled to redeem. He is not estopped by reason of the covenant in his deed because, it was made subject to the mortgage. In other words, that encumbrance was a condition of the estáte conveyed. It was in effect a defeasance clause by means of which the title of the grantees might be defeated. They foresaw the possible result which might arise from foreclosure, to the effect that their holding would be extinguished, *264and a new statutory right of redemption would arise and be vested in him of whom they had bought and who would become a judgment debtor entitled in that character to rescue the land from the effect of the sale. It is not a ease of a covenanting grantor trying to enforce an after-acquired title in face of his deed. It is an instance where he is entitled to enjoy the results which the law deduces from the very instrument under_ which his grantees and their successors in interest would resist his claim. They cannot complain, because they have not kept the faith of their covenant to assume and pay the mortgage. They cannot escape the consequences which the statute visits upon them, to wit, elimination of their estate by foreclosure with the coincident creation of the right of redemption to be exercised by the judgment debtor. All these sequelae flow from the deed under which the grantees of Higgs combat his right to redeem. They were to be expected by them and cannot now be avoided. To hold otherwise would be to allow them and their successor in interest, the purchaser at the sale, to refuse to pay the mortgage, and at the same time to reap an advantage over the man primarily liable for the same, all by virtue of their having broken covenant with him. Higgs never has lost his character as a judgment debtor, and there was nothing in his deed preventing him from assuming it when it came into being. Indeed, it is the natural consequence of the very terms of the deed, unless the grantees had observed its conditions.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Bakin did not sit.
Mr. Clinton E. Woodson and Mr. J. Bowerman, for the petition.
Mr. Andrew G. Thompson, Messrs. Winter, Wilson <& Johnson, and Mr. Glenn Y. Wells, contra.
In Banc.