Court Opinion

ID: 6738401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:20:16.094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:52.886316
License: Public Domain

Robinson, J.
(concurring). This case is really much ado about nothing. It presents for review only a few trifling errors regarding the taxation of costs and a personal judgment against the appellant Styles for $54 and on the personal judgment he has been allowed a credit of $10. The suit is to foreclose a mortgage which was not made by Styles. It was made by Charles Goodsman and wife, dated November 10, 1903, to secure $500 in ten years, with interest at 7 per cent. Defendant Styles is made a party as a purchaser of the mortgaged premises. As the court found the amount due and unpaid on the mortgage is $500 and interest at 7 per cent from February 1, 1915.
The original judgment was that plaintiff recover from the mortgagors said $500 and interest, with costs amounting to $131.53, and that he recover from Styles a part of the costs amounting to $131.53.
On October 20th, 1917, on motion to retax the costs, an amended judgment was entered that plaintiff recover from the mortgagors $500, with interest at 7 per cent from February 1, 1915, and also the following costs in a void foreclosure advertisement:
Attorney’s fees ...................................................... $30.00
Public notice of sale ................................................. 11.88
Sheriff’s fees ......................................................... 10.60
Register of Deeds .................................................... 4.26
Amount ......................................................... $56.73
Also that plaintiff recover from Asa Styles on costs of the suit $54.80. As Styles was the only party who appeared and defended, there was nothing wrong in taxing against him the costs of the suit, but in regard to the costs of the void foreclosure by advertisement amounting to $56.73, there is no law for taxing the same against anyone. It cannot be that a party may tax against anyone the costs of repeated and void attempts to foreclose a mortgage. It is quite sufficient that the mortgagors should be taxed with the actual costs of a valid foreclosure.
By commencing this action the plaintiff concedes that his first attempted foreclosure was abortive and void, and it is quite enough for a party to bear the costs of a valid foreclosure proceeding against him or his property without paying the costs of a void suit. The costs and *230disbursements of tbe action must be taxed in accordance with the statute.
Hence, the judgment should be modified by striking it from the costs of the attempted foreclosure by advertisement, and as thus modified it is affirmed without costs to either party. No cost is allowed the appellant, because he has persisted in raising and presenting false and needless issues in regard to the void foreclosure proceeding and an attempted redemption under it.