Court Opinion

ID: 9682067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:04:57.397387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.300526
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS TO MODIFY AND APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TO TRANSFER TO COURT EN BANC.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant trustee, filed a motion to modify the last paragraph of the opinion by substituting for the phrase reading “within thirty days,” which appellant admits was in accordance with his original brief, the phrase “within one hundred twenty days,” the same to run from September 9, 1963. Upon appellant’s presentation that as trustee he will have to negotiate a loan on the 322-acre tract to conform with the conditional decree of. this court, we think it equitable that he be granted this extension of time to comply *126with our decree. City Investing Company v. Davis, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 63, 69; Jones v. McGonigle, 327 Mo. 457, 37 S.W.2d 892, 895[5-8], 74 A.L.R. 550. In this connection appellant states he will make such deposit immediately upon obtaining the funds therefor “and offers to abide by the conditional decree so entered.”
Respondents have filed a motion to modify the last paragraph of the opinion by adding after the phrase “until the same is paid” the following: “and the sum of $1,610.63 with interest from July 6, 1962, at the rate of 6% per annum until the same is paid”. Appellant does not question respondents’ allegations that, in order to prevent the sale of the 322 acres for taxes, respondent Griggs “paid the amount of taxes and penalties for the year 1957 in the amount of $1,610.63 * * ' *.” In these circumstances respondent is entitled to restitution of the taxes so paid, and the opinion is to stand modified in accord with respondents’ request.
Appellant filed another “Motion to Modify Opinion or in the Alternative for Rehearing or for Transfer to the Court En Banc”. Appellant’s main contention in said motion is that respondents, notwithstanding the benefits conferred upon appellant, may not have any restitution because respondents’ conduct was wrongful in connection with the execution sale. This contention is not well taken for a number of reasons. It is based upon the assertion that “the circumstantial evidence was sufficient” for a finding that respondent Griggs’ actions, through his agent’s conduct, was wrongful and mala fides (consult Restatement, Restitution, § 140; Annotation, 142 A.L.R. 310, 349); but the findings of the trial chancellor are in complete contradiction of appellant’s contention. Furthermore, this issue first appears as a “Point” in appellant’s reply brief. See S.Ct. Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R. A respondent is not afforded an opportunity to answer a “Point” first made in an appellant’s reply brief; and we have many times said such points are not for consideration. Orchard v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co., Mo., 184 S.W. 1138[ 1]; In re Buder’s Estate, Mo., 317 S.W.2d 828, 837[4, 5]; Magenheim v. Board of Education, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 619, 621; and see State ex rel. Joslin v. School Dist. No. 7 of Jasper County, Mo.App., 302 S.W.2d 497, 500[8]. Appellant’s reply brief was not overlooked by the court. In addition, all the evidence is, and it is not contended otherwise by appellant, that the $20,600 purchase price bid was applied to the discharge of obligations constituting lawful charges against the 322 acres. Appellant’s authorities, as we read them, do not hold that in the circumstances of this record an execution purchaser may not have restitution of the funds so applied upon the setting aside of the execution sale. See the ruling with respect to the taxes in Martin v. McCabe, 358 Mo. 118, 213 S.W.2d 497, 504, a case cited by appellant; Annotation, 142 A.L.R., loc.cit. 351. We consider it unjust to permit a judgment-debtor to recover back his property because an execution sale was irregular and at the same time allow him to profit by that irregular sale to discharge his judgment debts paid out of the purchase price for his property at the sale.
Appellant also contends that under S.Ct. Rule 83.17 the costs should not be assessed against him. This is a suit in equity, and a court of equity has inherent discretionary power to reasonably award or apportion the costs as a condition to the granting of relief. Amitin v. Izard, Mo.App., 262 S.W.2d 353, 356 [2], and cases cited. Let the opinion be modified so as to apportion the costs equally between the appellant and respondents.
The opinion is modified in accord with the foregoing. In all other respects it stands as written.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
On January 7, 1964, the appellant-trustee deposited with the clerk of this court the principal sums of $20,600.00 and $1,610.63, *127with interest thereon, for a total deposit of $26,019.26. The said sum of $26,019.26 was paid to the respondent Bill Griggs, and his written receipt and satisfaction of judgment was filed herein on January 10, 1964. The costs taxed in this court have also been paid. The court, therefore, finds that the appellant-trustee has fully complied with the conditions imposed by the opinion filed herein on September 9, 1963, and the per curiam opinion filed October 7, 1963, and is entitled to the relief contemplated by said opinions.
Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the trial court is reversed and the cause -is remanded with directions to set aside and cancel the sheriff’s sale and the sheriff’s deed made to the plaintiff pursuant to said sale and to take such further proceedings as may be necessary to revest the defendant-trustee with title to the land in question in conformity with this and the other opinions rendered herein by this court.