Court Opinion

ID: 9768806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:50:51.607766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:46.368332
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant is .especially dissatisfied with our method of calculating the proportions in which the drugstore property was owned. We based our figures on $9,000 as being the purchase price of the property. This is correct but it includes $1,500 borrowed by the trustee and secured by a lien on the entire property, which debt and lien are outstanding.
We are of the opinion that this $1,500 loan does not affect the proportions in which the property was owned by the trust estate and Mrs. Mace.
This obligation created no actual liability of the trust estate other than the lien because the trust estate owned no other property out of which a deficiency judgment could be satisfied. If the trustee were personally liable on the note, a matter we do not decide, this liability does not alter the respective amounts invested by the trust estate and Mrs. Mace in the purchase of the property, and we can think of no valid reason for treating this liability as an investment for either the trust estate or Mrs. Mace.
We, therefore, correct our original opinion and vest title to the drugstore proper?/ in Mrs. Mace- in the proportion which 1287 bears to 7687 (7687 being $1287 + $6400, the respective amounts contributed ■ by Mrs. Mace and the trust estate towards the purchase of the drugstore property).
Appellant’s motion is in all other respects overruled.
Granted in part and in part overruled.