Brinton v. Haight
870 P.2d 677 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor's tender of full payment on a secured debt, conditioned upon the simultaneous delivery of a deed of reconveyance, is a valid tender that stops the accrual of subsequent interest, costs, and attorney fees. A debtor is not required to also tender payment for a trustee's administrative fees, which are not part of the secured debt, to be entitled to the reconveyance.
Facts:
- In 1988, G. W. Haight and W. Dea Haight purchased real property from James R. Brinton and Patricia J. Brinton, financing part of it with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust.
- Pioneer Title Co. was designated as both the trustee for the deed of trust and the escrow holder for receiving payments.
- On November 9, 1990, Mr. Haight went to Pioneer's office to pay off the note and presented a cashier's check for the full payoff amount of $53,272.80.
- Mr. Haight requested the deed of reconveyance but was told by a Pioneer employee that it would not be ready until the next business day.
- Unwilling to leave the cashier's check without simultaneously receiving the deed of reconveyance, Mr. Haight took back the check.
- Over the following days, a dispute arose between the Haights and Pioneer over a $28 reconveyance charge and a $20 payoff fee included in the payoff amount, which the Haights believed they did not owe.
- On November 13, 1990, Mr. Haight delivered a letter to Pioneer reiterating his offer to pay the principal and interest by cashier's check in exchange for the simultaneous delivery of the reconveyance deed, but excluded the disputed fees.
- Pioneer resigned as trustee due to the fee dispute, and the Haights made no further payments on the note, asserting they remained ready to pay the November 9th balance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Brintons filed an action in district court against the Haights, seeking judgment for the unpaid principal and accrued interest on the promissory note, as well as judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust.
- Following a court trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Brintons for the full amount requested, including interest that accrued after the Haights' tender on November 9, 1990, plus costs and attorney fees.
- The Haights paid the judgment and then appealed the district court's award of post-tender interest, costs, and attorney fees to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a debtor's tender of full payment on a promissory note, conditioned on the simultaneous delivery of a deed of reconveyance, constitute a valid tender sufficient to stop the accrual of further interest, costs, and attorney fees?
Opinions:
Majority - Lansing, J.
Yes. A debtor's tender of full payment on a promissory note is valid even if conditioned on the simultaneous delivery of a deed of reconveyance, and such a tender stops the accrual of subsequent interest, costs, and attorney fees. The court reasoned that while a tender must generally be unconditional, a party may rightfully insist upon a condition they are legally entitled to. Under contract law and established precedent like Harding v. Home Investment Savings Co., the payment of a secured debt and the release of the security (the reconveyance) are considered concurrent conditions. Therefore, a debtor may demand that both actions occur simultaneously. The court found that the Haights made an adequate physical tender by presenting a cashier's check and kept the tender good by stating their continued readiness to pay in exchange for the deed. The subsequent dispute over the trustee's reconveyance fee was irrelevant because I.C. § 45-1514 does not require a debtor to pay the trustee's administrative fees as a precondition to receiving the reconveyance upon satisfaction of the underlying debt.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the rights of debtors in Idaho when satisfying a secured debt, affirming that paying the debt and receiving the release of security are concurrent obligations. It establishes a significant precedent that protects debtors from being forced to pay and then wait for the creditor or trustee to release the encumbrance on their property. The ruling also draws a clear line between the secured debt itself and collateral administrative fees, preventing creditors from using disputes over minor fees to refuse a valid tender and continue charging interest on the principal debt. This strengthens the negotiating position of debtors during the loan payoff process and promotes the simultaneous exchange of payment for release of collateral.
Unlock the full brief for Brinton v. Haight