Court Opinion

ID: 5153112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:05:37.678437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:28.613882
License: Public Domain

I have no disagreement with the general proposition advocated by the plaintiffs, and as set forth in the main opinion, that where there is a simple pledge of property, which can be put to profitable use without lessening its value, and the pledgee uses it for a profit, the profit should inure to the benefit of the pledgor, unless the understanding of the parties is to the contrary. It is not my understanding that the position of the defendant or of the trial court is in disagreement therewith. That position briefly stated is this: That it is shown that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were fully aware of the manner in which this so-called monthly "budget payment" of one twelfth of the taxes and insurance for the year was to be made and handled to insure payments of those essentials; that even though plaintiffs were so aware and considered this to be unfair, they did not then so state, nor make any request that interest should be paid thereon, but voluntarily entered into the contract fully and clearly setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties, but without the contract containing any such covenant as to the payment of interest.
There are some elementary principles of contract law that should be given consideration here: that when parties negotiate on a subject matter and reduce their agreement to writing, it should be presumed to consolidate their entire understanding as to *Page 1341 
mutual rights and obligations on that subject matter;1 and further, that the contract should be enforced and enforceable against each party only in accordance with the covenants expressed therein.2
Pertinent to the plaintiffs' demand for payment of interest on the "budget payment" it is to be noted that the documentary evidence shows that over the years of their contract that account had an average balance of $275.42, which at an interest rate of 5% would produce $13.70 per year; and that the estimated cost to the bank of the collecting, accounting and disbursing of such "budget payments" would be $16 + per account per year.
When all of the foregoing is considered in the light of the principles of law set forth above, I think the trial court was justified in adopting the position essayed by the defendant: that if the plaintiffs had desired a covenant to pay interest on the "budget payment" they should have so stated and negotiated for such a covenant in the contract. But having failed to do so, they should not be permitted to stand by and make these payments for 11 years without expressing any expectation or making any demand for interest thereon, and then attempt to impose a new obligation upon the defendant, not provided for in the contract.
I would affirm the judgment, leaving the parties to their rights as expressed in the covenants of the contract as made, or as may be made in the future with respect to interest on such payments.
HENRIOD, C.J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of CROCKETT, J.
1 Mawhinney v. Jensen, 120 Utah 142, 232 P.2d 769.
2 See Jones v. Acme Bldg. Products, 22 Utah 2d 202,450 P.2d 743.
*Page 148