Friday, August 10, 2007

Equitable Mortgage Cases - Wisconsin - Part 2

78 Wis. 656; 48 N.W. 51
(Wi. 1891)

(revised 8-15-07; 1st & 2nd paragraph corrected 1-17-08 - corrections in red)


This case involved an action of unlawful detainer by a grantee (actually, it was a grantee's successor in interest) under a deed given to secure payment of a debt. As part of the conveyance to the (original) grantee, he and the grantor contemporaneously entered into a separate land contract under which the grantor could buy back the property conveyed upon payment of a certain sum in five equal installments with interest. The grantor made no payments; the grantee conveyed its interest to another - its successor in interest - and the successor thereafter initiated an action of unlawful detainer against grantor to obtain possession of the premises.

After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of the grantor (Editor's Note: the original version of this post inadvertently stated that the jury found in favor of the grantee; correction made 1-17-08) and, on appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The ruling was to the effect that (1) the transaction creating the relationship between plaintiff and defendant was an equitable mortgage; and (2) an action of unlawful detainer, under the statutes then in effect, could not be maintained unless the conventional relation of landlord and tenant existed at the time between the plaintiff and the defendant.

-----------------------


In affirming, the court made the following statements and observations (bold text is my emphasis; excerpts broken up for ease of reading):

1) "The question, therefore, recurs whether the facts so submitted to and found by the jury authorized the maintenance of this action of unlawful detainer."

2) "There is no claim that the facts bring the case within the remedy given by sec. 3359, R. S. The contention is, however, that they do bring the case within the provisions of sec. 3358, R. S. 1 This court has repeatedly held that such an action cannot be maintained under that section unless the conventional relation of landlord and tenant exists at the time between the plaintiff and the defendant. Buel v. Buel, 76 Wis. 413, 45 N.W. 324; Menominee R. L. Co. v. Philbrook, ante, p. 142; and cases cited in the opinions."

3) "Such an action is a summary remedy given by statute, but was never intended as a substitute for ejectment or a bill in equity. "A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to try the title to land. But the facts upon which the right of removal is based may be put in issue by the answer, and the issue so raised may be tried and determined in a justice's court. . . . Even where the facts show that the defendant has an interest in the premises which can only be fully protected in a court of equity, yet, if they are such as to disprove the conventional relation of landlord and tenant, they will be sufficient to defeat such action of unlawful detainer." 76 Wis. 413, 416, 417."

4) "The question to be determined, therefore, is whether the facts found by the jury in the portion of the charge quoted in the foregoing statement, were such as to create the conventional relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant."

5) "Such facts were to the effect that the quitclaim deed was given to the plaintiff by the defendant and wife in pursuance of an arrangement and agreement that the defendant should retain an interest in the land with the privilege of selling the same, within the time named, for a price exceeding the amount due on the contract, and, in case of such sale, retain such excess; that, in case the plaintiff should sell during said period for an amount more than his due, then he should turn such excess over to the defendant; that if the defendant paid the amount due on the contract during said period, then the plaintiff should reconvey the land to the defendant."

6) "In accordance with numerous adjudications of this court, we must hold that the agreement thus found left in the defendant an equity of redemption in the land, and of course disproved the conventional relation of landlord and tenant."

7) "A few of these cases only are cited. Starks v. Redfield, 52 Wis. 349, 9 N.W. 168; Rockwell v. Humphrey, 57 Wis. 410, 15 N.W. 394; Schriber v. LeClair, 66 Wis. 579; and cases cited in the opinions."

8) "It is contended, in effect, that the absence from the arrangement of any express personal agreement on the part of the defendant to repay the money barred him of all equity of redemption in the premises. But that fact is not always conclusive, as shown by numerous authorities in the cases cited."

9) "Once a mortgage, always a mortgage, is the rule generally recognized in the cases. Ibid. When the facts and circumstances of the transaction are equivocal, the question whether it constitutes a pledge, security, mortgage, or a conditional sale is one of intention. Ibid. Whenever the relation of debtor and creditor is created by the transaction, or previously existed, and by express language or fair implication continues, and the possession is retained by the grantor, the transaction is usually held to be a pledge, security, or mortgage, especially if the value of the property conveyed is considerably in excess of the price allowed. Ibid."

10) "But the cases cited so fully discuss the questions here involved as to require nothing additional in this opinion. It is enough to say that the facts found negatived the existence of the conventional relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. Buel v. Buel, 76 Wis. 413, 45 N.W. 324; Menomonie R. L. Co. v. Philbrook, ante, p. 142."

----------------------------

Go here for other posts on the claiming the equitable mortgage doctrine in actions seeking eviction of a homeowner who signed away a deed as collateral for a loan (ie. actions for ejectment, unlawful detainer).

Go here for all posts on the equitable mortgage doctrine in Wisconsin. Wisconsin equitable mortgage zeta emdefense

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The American Dream

-Received pre-foreclosure notice in april 06 for falling behind in mortgage
Payments for March and April 06 (Wells Fargo)
-lost Job with Uno’s mid May 06
-On or around May 26th Alice showed up at our door and said “
Peninsula Real Estate Investments will help bring the mortgage current,
fix our credit, refinance us after one year of on-time payments.”
-On May 27th Mary and Alice show up with a real estate contract. The
Contract showed us receiving $21,000 back, the first and second mortgage
Paid off, six months of mortgage payments paid to Wells fargo ($8622)
Out of proceeds to be held in escrow. They explained that after the 6 months
Of paid mortgage payments we would pay Tidewater for 6 more months to
Improve our credit. They said, “We would pay them, and they would pay
The mortgage.” Mary notarized the contract.
-On June 10th Alice called to say that closing was scheduled June 12th.
Which was the day before the foreclosure sale.
-June 12th we meet with Norma and Alice for closing at Conrad and Hamer
PC . The numbers on the previous contract did not match. I protested.
Norma left the room while Alice explained that they couldn’t make the
Numbers work. The refinance price was dropped to $173,000 with us receiving
$4,600. We also signed a special power of attorney for Norma. They said
This instrument would help them stop the foreclosure sale, and act on our
Behalf.
-Sept 06 we received notices from Wells Fargo about the Mortgage not
Being paid. I called Alice and received no answer.
-October 06 more notices and same result. Called Tidewater and no return
Calls persisted. I went to Conrad and Hamer Pc and spoke to Norma, she
Stated that she would contact them.
-November 06 received preforeclosure notice for January 3rd. Called Alice
And Norma. Went to Conrad and Hamer to speak with Norma about concerns.
-December 06 received more foreclosure notices. Went to Conrad and Hamer
And spoke to Norma about the situation. She stated that she did not understand
Why the mortgage was not paid and would contact Tidewater.
-On or around January 1st or 2nd Alice contacted me and said they would take
Care of it. At this point Wells Fargo said that I was 4 months behind in
Payments.
-Jan 5th 07 paid mortgage payment to Norma @ Conrad and Hamer Pc
Voiced concern with Norma.





-Feb 12th 07 paid Norma @ Conrad and Hamer Pc under duress.
-March 5th 07 paid Norma @ Conrad and Hamer Pc. Stated Trifecta
Was new “owner”. Made check out to Trifecta investments. Received
Late notice from Wells Fargo on property.
-April 07 Pre-foreclosure notice received. Delivered check to Conrad and Hamer
Pc. Check written to Trifecta. Trina and George come to house to take pictures
Of the inside/outside of property. Received $1947 from Wells fargo. The letter
Said it was not enough to cover arrearages.
-May 07 Received preforeclosure notice from Wells Fargo. Paid Trifecta by May 5th.with seasoned money from Wells Fargo.
-On or around May 29th George shows up to property with 2 guys to see if I had
Moved out of the property. Nicole Fleming says that “You will be out because
I have the deed”. Received Unlawful Detainer 2 days later
-June 07 Entered forebearance agreement to stop foreclosure. Paid Trifecta
June 14th. Received pay or quit notice from Trifecta. Negotiated with Nicole
To make mortgage payment because of all late notices.
-July 07 Trifecta paid Wells Fargo $2627 to start forebearance period.
-August 07 Trifecta paid Wells Fargo $1363, Entered another Forebearance
Agreement with Wells Fargo because Trifecta didn’t pay the payment on-time
Which broke the agreement.
-Sept 10 07 I paid Wells Fargo $1363 so it would be paid on time.
-October 10, 07 I paid $1363 to Wells Fargo. Sent difference between $1437 to
Trifecta thru Ms Sherwood.
-November 07 I paid Wells Fargo$1363
-Dec 07-March 08 Sent financial sheets to Wells Fargo to Modify Loan/Waiting on
Approval. They will not accept any payment until it is approved. We have accumulated
$5000 for the process.
-Jan 08 Contacted Wells Fargo to see if we were approved for a Loan Modification.
Still in progress. Contacted them three times and still no answer. Put mortgage in
Bank for future payments
-Feb 08 Contacted Wells Fargo to check on Loan Modification. No answer yet.
Received letter about foreclosure set for April 2 08.
-March 13 08 Went to Circuit court in Suffolk for negotiation. They told me not to let
Wells Fargo know about title change. Legal Aid of Va and Jennifer Sherwood’s office
Let us know that they were not going to represent us after April 1st. Mark Baumgardner
And Trifecta said they want us out of the property and they want $70,000 for their losses
And attorney fees. We agreed to have Trifecta try to refinance us through their company by the end of the day.
-March 14 08 no call yesterday by 6pm as agreed. No call today from Trifecta for
Refinancing purposes. Sending 2 letters to qualify for Homepoint loan of 80% @6.75
For refinancing. By the way, Nicole Fleming misrepresented herself as Trina Happer.






-April 1st given notice by Legal Aid of Va and Jennifer’s Sherwood’s office that they
Would no longer be representing us because of a Federal case where the homeowner
Lost their case. At this point Ms Sherwood tried to say that we had not been forthcoming with all information we gave her and she would not represent us anymore.
Judge told us to have an attorney by April 30 or be in court anyway.
-April 30th 08 We showed up to court without finding an attorney willing to take our case
Summary Judgement was entered against us for $16023 for Trifecta, and $10,000 for attorney fees because we didn’t have legal representation. We were also given five days
To vacate our home after 7 years. We put most of our belongings in storage and moved
Our three children into a two bedroom apartment for $1100 a month.
-May 20th 08 Wells Fargo Mortgage is still not paid off and is still in my name.
Joel Fortune of Chartwell Investments is refurbishing the house, and Wells Fargo says that I should not have left the house because they are the first lien holder to the property.
--May 27th 08 Now relocated around the corner to a 2 bedroom apartment with 5 family
Members. I love the American Dream.
--June 5 Negotiated with Joel Fortune to help pay the payment and get the mortgage
Current. He paid this month’s mortgage.
--July 1 Wells Fargo paid by Joel Fortune
--August 1 Wells fargo paid by Joel Fortune.
--August 15th Loan paid in Full. Shows Paid in full.
--September 20 08 Living in a 2 bedroom apartment with wife and three kids, no home,
Filed chapter 13 bankruptcy to stop Trifecta from garnishing our wages. Bank accounts
Already frozen.



James and Indy Wright
757 2516246
757 4629347
757 3208914
757 3208918