Court Opinion

ID: 7098299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 12:13:14.182267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:13:19.568342
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
Seevers, J.
A rehearing was granted on the petition of the appellant — not because of the belief that, as an original question, there was error in the foregoing opinion, but because the prior decisions of this court, bearing on the question determined, were seemingly inconsistent with each other. That, .logically, there is a conflict in such decisions must, we think, be regarded as true. It was held in Crosby v. Elkader Lodge, 16 Iowa, 399, “that if the debtor or his grantee redeem land which had been sold in part satisfaction of a subsisting j ucfgment, the property at once becomes liable to satisfy the unpaid balance of the execution from the moment of such redemption. ”
It is obvious this ruling is based on the ground that the unsatisfied balance of the judgment continues to be a lien on the premises after the sale, as against the execution debtor or his assignee. No reasons are stated in support of this holding, but it is bottomed exclusively on Curtis v. Millard & Co., 14 Iowa, 128. In that case the facts were that Gregory, Tilton & Co. recovered a judgment against Downing & Foster, by virtue of which they became the purchasers, at sheriff’s sale, in February, 1860, of certain real estate. Afterward, in July, 1860, Millard & Co. recovered a judgment against Downing & Foster, who sold to the plaintiff their right of redemption from the sale to Gregory, Tilton & Co. It was held that the judgment of Millard & Co. was a lien from the date of its rendition on such right of redemption. It will be observed this case has no bearing on the point determined in Crosby v. Elkader Lodge, the only question determined being that a judgment constitutes a lien on an equitable title to real estate, and, therefore, the judgment of Millard & Co. was a lien on the equity or right to redeem.
*594In Hays v. Thode, 18 Iowa, 51, the facts were that Thode obtained a judgment against Elliott, and thereunder became the purchaser at sheriff’s sale of certain real estate, the amount of his bid being much less than his judgment. Hays, being a subsequent creditor of Elliott, and entitled to redeem, sought to do so by paying to the clerk the amount of Thode’s bid, interest and costs. The latter insisted that Hays could not redeem without paying the amount of the balance due on the judgment under which the land had been sold, but it was ruled otherwise. It is evident .this ruling was based on the thought that, as to a junior creditor, the lien of the judgment as to the unsatisfied balance was divested by the sale. This decision is supported by Dewey v. Tuttle, 44 Iowa, 306.
The foregoing cases irresistibly lead us to conclude that a distinction has been recognized between the debtor, his assignee and a creditor, and that the terms under which either of the former may redeem are materially different and more burdensome than those applicable to the latter. That such a distinction existed seems to have been recognized by Dillon, J., in Hays v. Thode; but as no such point was before the court in that case, what was said relating thereto must be regarded as dictum.
It is important, therefore, to determine whether, under the statute, any such distinction can be sustained. It provides that “the terms of redemption in all cases will be the reimbursement of the amount paid by the then holder, added to the amount of his own lien.” Code, § 3106. The lien referred to must be that of the holder, otherwise the redemptioner must pay the amount of his own lien to the holder before he could redeem. This would be absurd.
If, then, the balance of the judgment is a lien on the premises after the sale, Hays, in the case above cited, could not have redeemed without paying the amount of such lien in addition to the amount of the bid, interest and costs. Goode v. Cummings, 25 Iowa, 67.
*595The statute applies to all cases, and expressly excludes the thought that the terms of redemption which may be lawfully imposed on the debtor or his assignee are in any respect different from or more burdensome than those of the creditor who may be entitled to redeem.
To say the least, it is logically difficult to reconcile Crosby v. Elkader Lodge with Hays v. Thode and Tuttle v. Dewey. Such being true, we are at liberty to adopt such rule as is deemed to be the proper one under the statute, and we are of the opinion that the better rule is that the lien of the judgment as to the unsatisfied balance on the real estate sold is, as to all persons and in all eases, divested by the sale. This simplifies the law on this subject and uniformity is thereby attained, which is certainly desirable. This view is supported by the statute, which provides that “when the property has been sold in parcels any distinct portion may be redeemed by itself.” Code, § 3121. If there remains a balance due on the judgment after the sale which constitutes a lien on the land sold, it is difficult to see how the debtor or his assignee could avail himself of the benefit of this statute except by paying the whole of such balance before he could redeem the most insignificant parcel, for the statute makes no provision as to the apportionment of such balance on the several parcels.
If redemption of the whole or any parcel is made by the debtor, the judgment, to the extent of the balance due thereon, would constitute a lien on the premises in his hands, and they might again be sold on execution based on said judgment. But we see no reason why the debtor may not sell his right of redemption, and his vendee redeem by paying the amount of the bid, interest and costs.
It should be conclusively presumed, for the purpose of redemption, that the purchaser bid therefor all that the property was worth to him. Whether, in case the judgment creditor is the purchaser and the judgment is not fully satis*596fied by the sale, he could issue another execution and sell the debtor’s right of redemption, we do not determine.
The result is that the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion is •
Adhered to.