Court Opinion

ID: 9651542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:25:29.213694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:35.261987
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent because, in my opinion, paragraph 10 of the deed of trust set forth in full in the majority opinion is clear and unambiguous and unless elements of estoppel or acquiescence by the trustees are present, it permits the trustees to collect a one-half commission every time the “property on which this trust is secured shall be advertised for sale hereunder and not sold.” This language means exactly what it says and indicates the intention of the parties to the deed of trust that whenever the subject property “shall be advertised for sale hereunder” and shall not be sold pursuant to the advertisement of sale, the trustees are entitled to a one-half commission.
It will be observed that there is no limitation in the language of paragraph 10 which limits the number of times the trustees may during the term of the deed of trust advertise the subject property for sale if there has been a default pursuant to the provisions of the deed of trust. The language thus means that every time the subject property is advertised for sale and not sold, the trustees — if not estopped by their own act or agreement —may collect a one-half commission. The intention of *52the parties to the deed of trust is clearly expressed in the language used and, not being ambiguous, is not, in my opinion, subject to interpretation by us. As Judge Smith, for the Court, aptly stated in Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269, 252 A. 2d 469, 471 (1969) :
“Maryland contract law is to the effect that where a contract is plain as to its meaning, there is no room for construction and it must be presumed that the parties meant what they expressed.” (Citing three prior Maryland cases)
The majority opinion construes the provision to mean that the right of the trustees to the one-half commissions is conditioned “on a failure to make the sale * * * and not on the number of sale dates which may have been advertised.” The difficulty with this construction, in my opinion, is that the language does not require construction — it being clear and unambiguous — and the majority’s construction places a condition in paragraph 10 which the language does not permit and the parties did not state. If the parties had intended the meaning of the language of paragraph 10 to be that as construed by the majority of the Court, it would likely have read:
10. That if the property on which this trust is secured shall be advertised for sale hereunder and regardless of the number of times advertised for sale and shall not ultimately be sold, etc.
This italicized language, however, is not in paragraph 10 and, in the absence of such language, there is no limitation upon the number of times the subject property may be advertised by the trustees and if not sold on the day and at the time and place of the advertised sale (in the absence of an estoppel by the conduct of the trustees or their agreement), the trustees may collect a one-half commission.
The majority indicates that the result reached by it “engenders no inequity,” suggesting that readvertise*53ment imposes no particularly onerous burden on the trustees and that the climate in which deeds of trust and mortgages are drafted makes “bargaining by a borrower. . .next to impossible.” With respect, in my opinion, these observations beg the question. There is no suggestion in the record that the deed of trust was not valid in every way and that the borrower lawfully agreed to its terms. The amount of work by the trustees in the readvertisement is not the measure of allowance of one-half commissions but rather the fact of a proper advertisement for sale and no sale in accordance with its terms. It may be observed that in the second readvertisement for sale on April 22, 1969, Lakrest filed a suit for an injunction to prevent the sale, obtained an order of court restraining it and later entered into a written agreement with the trustees that no hearing should be held, the injunction suit be dismissed with prejudice and thereafter, the trustees should, for the third time, re-advertise the property for sale “in precisely the same form, excepting only the sale date, as previously utilized by the Defendant-Trustees.” It is rather apparent from this that the action by the debtor to enjoin the sale had little, if any, merit and apparently was a device to obtain additional time to pay the debt. There is little question that this action by the debtor required the performance of substantial legal work by the trustees in connection with the injunction suit, agreement, etc. It appears that not only does the language of paragraph 10 permit the payment of a one-half commission for this episode but that every equity is in favor of compensation of the trustees in this situation.
The third readvertisement of the subject property was thereafter prepared and provided for a proposed sale on May 20, 1969. The trustees prepared the new advertisement of sale, were required to see that it conformed to the previous readvertisement except the date of sale, arranged for the auctioneer and generally performed the usual services involved in preparing for the sale. Here again, the sale was not made after that third readvertise*54ment because of the action of Lakrest in paying off the indebtedness, including expenses. I can find no “inequity” in allowing the trustees a second “one-half commission” for this third readvertisement and failure to make sale caused by the action of the debtor and, as heretofore indicated, it comes within the precise language of the provisions of paragraph 10. This third advertisement and no subsequent sale because of payment by the debtor comes within the ambit of our decision in Hersh v. Allnutt, 252 Md. 513, 250 A. 2d 629 (1969), cited in the majority opinion, in which we held that when a mortgage provides for the payment of a one-half commission if the mortgaged property is advertised for sale but not sold (the provision being substantially the same as the one in the instant case), the attorney named in the mortgage was entitled to charge and collect that commission when he had advertised the mortgaged property for sale but the mortgagor paid off the mortgage indebtedness prior to the sale. Judge Marbury, for the Court, stated:
“Appellants [the mortgagors] insist that appellees’ attorney had no right to demand a commission when they belatedly offered to make interest payments after the property had been advertised for sale. This contention has no merit since the mortgage specifically provided that such a commission be paid.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
(252 Md. at 517, 250 A. 2d at 632).
In its brief and at the argument of this case before us, Lakrest placed its entire reliance on the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 1922 in the case of George v. Forest Glen Land Co., 52 App. D.C. 73, 281 F. 577 (1922). In my opinion, this reliance is misplaced. In the George case, the trustee claimed one-half commission in several situations in which the property had been advertised but not sold. In two instances the proposed sale had been temporarily enjoined since *55the required bonds had not been filed; in another instance the proposed sale was postponed by the trustee because of inclement weather; and in another instance a sale was held, but the trustee, contrary to the terms of sale, accepted an uncertified check, later dishonored, as the down payment. In each of the situations in which the sale was not held, the failure to hold the sale resulted from the voluntary actions of the trustee. If the trustees in the present case had claimed a one-half commission on the first proposed sale, in which the trustees had acquiesced in the postponement of the sale upon the request of the creditor, it could well be argued that the decision in the George case would be authority for disallowing that one-half commission. The majority properly, in my opinion, did not decide this question, inasmuch as the trustees do not claim that they are entitled to such a one-half commission. In the present case, however, unlike the George case, the two proposed sales in question were stopped by the sole action of Lakrest, first by injunction and secondly by payment of the indebtedness and incidental expenses. Both of these causes of postponement were without the consent or beyond control of the trustees. I do not understand that the majority relies upon the George case as supporting its decision in the instant case.
In my opinion, Judge Parker properly rendered a summary judgment for the two one-half commissions and I would affirm that judgment.
I am authorized to state that Judge Finan concurs in the views set forth herein.