Griggs v. Miller
374 S.W.2d 119 (1964)
Rule of Law:
An execution sale of real property may be set aside when there is a gross inadequacy of the sale price, coupled with irregularities in the sheriff's conduct, such as the failure to divide divisible property or to properly advertise all executions under which the property is sold.
Facts:
- Ray Crouch obtained a judgment against W. A. Brookshire for $1,966.69 in Henry County, Missouri, on July 15, 1959.
- Dorothy Contestible, Administratrix, obtained a judgment against William Albert Brookshire for $17,000 in Audrain County, Missouri, for a wrongful death action on July 29, 1960.
- On December 10, 1960, a general execution was issued on the Crouch judgment to Sheriff Powell of Boone County, who levied on Brookshire's 322-acre farm on December 14, 1960, and advertised it for public sale on January 16, 1961, to satisfy the Crouch judgment (then $2,308.16).
- On January 10, 1961, Sheriff Powell received a general execution for the Contestible judgment and levied on Brookshire's 322-acre farm on January 11, 1961, but did not advertise the farm for sale under this second execution.
- On January 11, 1961, Brookshire wrote to Sheriff Powell, instructing him to restrict any sale to the northeast 40 acres of the farm, stating this parcel was clear of encumbrances and sufficient to cover the debt.
- On the day of the sale, January 16, 1961, Brookshire publicly protested the sale, asserting the farm's value was approximately $50,000 and that one 40-acre parcel would be more than adequate, and that he had sufficient personal property (cattle, stocks) to cover the judgment debts.
- Sheriff Powell sold the entire 322-acre farm to Bill Griggs for $20,600 without dividing the property, despite the farm's market value being estimated between $46,000 and $86,000, and knowing that 40 acres might have been sufficient to cover the initial judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Crouch obtained a judgment against W. A. Brookshire in the Circuit Court of Henry County, Missouri, which was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals.
- Dorothy Contestible, Administratrix, obtained a judgment against William Albert Brookshire in the Circuit Court of Audrain County, Missouri.
- Bill Griggs sued W. A. Brookshire in ejectment for possession and damages in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, a case which was considered one of 'equitable cognizance'.
- Brookshire filed an answer and counterclaim in the Boone County Circuit Court, seeking to set aside the sheriff’s execution sale and deed of his farm.
- Upon Brookshire's application, Glen Powell, the Sheriff of Boone County who conducted the sale, was made a third-party defendant.
- The Circuit Court of Boone County found the issues for Griggs on his petition and against Brookshire and the third-party defendant on Brookshire's counterclaim, awarding Griggs possession and $2,483.24 in damages, plus $250 per month for continued withholding of possession.
- Brookshire filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.
- Following Brookshire's incarceration, George C. Miller was appointed trustee of Brookshire's Estate and substituted as a party litigant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the sheriff's sale of an entire 322-acre farm for $20,600, to satisfy multiple judgments totaling approximately $19,400, constitute an abuse of discretion and constructive fraud, warranting the setting aside of the sale and deed, given that the farm was valued between $46,000 and $86,000 and was susceptible of division?
Opinions:
Majority - Walter H. Bohling, Special Commissioner
Yes, the sheriff's sale of Brookshire's entire farm was an abuse of discretion and constructive fraud, requiring the setting aside of the sale and deed. The court explained that Civil Rules 76.21, 76.24, and 76.25 require an officer to levy only upon sufficient property, divide property susceptible of division, and allow the debtor to elect which part of their property shall be sold first. Sheriff Powell failed to adhere to these duties by selling the entire 322-acre farm, valued at approximately $46,000 (after accounting for a valid tax lien) for $20,600, to satisfy judgments totaling around $19,400 (of which only one was properly advertised). The sheriff's admission of not knowing it was illegal to sell $50,000 worth of property to satisfy a $2,000 judgment, his failure to consider Brookshire's personal property, and his disregard for Brookshire's explicit instructions to sell only a 40-acre parcel, further demonstrated a failure to exercise the care and discretion required of an officer. Citing State ex rel. Koeln v. Sanders and Queen City Inv. Co. v. Kreider, the court affirmed that a failure to divide real estate and sell only enough to satisfy the execution constitutes an abuse of discretion and constructive fraud. The gross disparity between the market value of the farm and the sale price, coupled with these irregularities, rendered the sale invalid. The court conditioned the reversal of the lower court's decree on Brookshire depositing the $20,600 purchase price plus 6% interest into the court within thirty days to do equity.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the equitable principles governing execution sales, particularly the sheriff's duty to protect the interests of both the judgment creditor and debtor. It establishes that while a grossly inadequate price alone may not be sufficient to set aside a sale, such inadequacy when combined with irregularities in the sale process—such as a failure to divide divisible property, improper advertisement, or disregard for debtor's instructions—will justify voiding the sale. This ruling provides a significant safeguard against the inequitable forfeiture of a debtor's property due to official malfeasance or negligence, impacting future cases by requiring stricter adherence to procedural fairness in forced sales.
