Cecil v. Dollar
1949 Tex. LEXIS 446, 147 Tex. 541, 218 S.W.2d 448 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-tenant who is contractually obligated to pay a debt secured by the entire property cannot default on that obligation, purchase the property at the resulting foreclosure sale, and thereby extinguish the other co-tenant's interest. Such a purchase inures to the benefit of all co-tenants.
Facts:
- W. M. Cecil placed a mortgage on a 640-acre tract of land, including the full mineral estate, to secure a note to G. R. Newman.
- Cecil later sold the land to A. L. Blount but reserved for himself a one-half interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals. Blount assumed the Newman mortgage.
- Blount then conveyed the land and his one-half mineral interest to Bill Dollar, who also expressly assumed the obligation to pay the entire Newman mortgage.
- At this point, Dollar owned the surface and one-half the minerals, while Cecil owned the other half of the minerals, with both interests subject to the mortgage that Dollar was obligated to pay.
- Dollar intentionally defaulted on the mortgage payments, causing the property to go into foreclosure.
- Prior to the sale, Dollar borrowed money for the specific purpose of buying the property at the foreclosure.
- At the trustee's sale caused by his own default, Dollar purchased the entire property, including the one-half mineral interest previously reserved by Cecil.
- The Cecils did not have any knowledge of the foreclosure proceedings until approximately 12 years after the sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Cecil initiated a trespass to try title action against Bill Dollar's administrator and heirs in the trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Dollar's administrator and heirs.
- Mrs. Cecil, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Mrs. Cecil, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Texas to review the appellate court's decision.
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 co-tenant who is contractually obligated to pay a mortgage on a common property acquire the other co-tenant's interest by intentionally defaulting on the mortgage and purchasing the entire property at the resulting foreclosure sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Taylor
No. A co-tenant who is contractually obligated to pay a mortgage on a common property does not acquire the other co-tenant's interest by intentionally defaulting and purchasing the property at the foreclosure sale. Because co-tenants stand in a confidential relationship, one cannot purchase an outstanding encumbrance and assert it for their exclusive benefit against the other. Dollar had a primary duty, created by his assumption of the mortgage, to pay the debt that encumbered both his and Cecil's mineral interests. By defaulting and buying at the foreclosure, he was attempting to profit from his own wrong, which equity will not permit. Therefore, Dollar's purchase is treated as having been made for the benefit of all co-tenants, effectively clearing the mortgage as he was originally obligated to do, rather than divesting his co-tenant of title.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fiduciary-like duties between co-tenants who share a common obligation, particularly when one has assumed a debt covering the entire property. It establishes that a co-tenant cannot use the mechanics of a foreclosure sale, brought about by their own breach of duty, as a method to wrongfully acquire their co-tenant's property interest. This precedent solidifies the equitable principle that one cannot profit from their own default, protecting co-tenants from being divested of their property through such bad-faith actions and constructive fraud.
