Court Opinion

ID: 9576110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:21:01.100886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:59:02.858349
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*102Donart & Donart, Weiser, Idaho, and Grant, Fuchs, Rose and Daron, Baker, for the petition.
Before Perry,* Chief Justice, and Warner, McAllister,** Sloan and O’Connell, Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-respondent now petitions for rehearing hy reason of certain of the modifications made in our original opinion upon appellant’s previous petition for rehearing. Emrich v. Emery, on petition for rehearing.
By his petition and brief in support thereof plaintiff principally complains because we required excess payments on one mortgage to be credited upon the balance due on another mortgage as of the date of the filing of the complaint of foreclosure. Plaintiff indicates this will upset the decree of foreclosure entered by the trial court and the subsequent sale of the property foreclosed by reason thereof. This does not appear to us to be a likely result. The mortgage last mentioned was clearly in default long prior to the time of the filing of the complaint; the plaintiff had been fully justified in exercising his right to acceleration of the debt due and, therefore, as of the date of the filing of the complaint the entire sum due and payable and secured by that mortgage was the amount in default. Perhaps we should have made this precise finding in our former opinion but deemed it unnecessary. *103The amounts we allowed to be credited on that indebtedness could not avoid that default. 1 Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure 101, § 54 et seq.
Both the parties have endeavored to call our attention to events which have transpired subsequent to the decree of the trial court herein and the appeal to this court. We have no record before us of which we can take notice of such events. Consequently, we were obliged to require the trial court to find the amounts for which the defendants Emery were entitled to credit and to apply them to the over-due indebtedness on the mortgage foreclosed. We could not tell if such sums were sufficient to effect a redemption of that mortgage but certainly these defendants were entitled to be credited therewith and upon the deficiency judgment entered. We agree with plaintiff, however, that the surplus payments on the Emery mortgage should have been applied to the City Center mortgage as of the date such payments were made.
As a part of his brief, designated assignment No. 2, plaintiff also complains that the offsets which we allowed defendants Emery against,the Emrich Furniture Co. should not be allowed as an offset against the indebtedness due the plaintiff Emrich. As indicated in our original opinion, the transactions and accounts of these three parties were so hopelessly interwoven that it was impossible to disentangle the web they had woven for themselves. A further review of the pleadings and evidence confirms our original belief that there is little to distinguish between the plaintiff Emrich as an individual and the defendant Emrich Furniture Co., his alter ego, as a separate entity. For this reason it was our belief, and still is, that the indebtedness due defendants Emery from the Emrich *104Furniture Co. should be applied on the amounts found due from these defendants to the plaintiff.
For his third assignment, plaintiff claims that we were in error in allowing interest on the amount the trial court allowed for damage by windstorm for the reason that the trial court applied that amount against the amount found due on the foreclosed mortgage. Obviously, when such amounts were actually credited, it was the equivalent of payment and no further interest would accrue. Inasmuch as this amount was credited in the decree of the trial court and not at the time of sale, no interest would have accrued.
Petition denied.