McMahon v. Thornton
1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 780, 96 S.W.2d 308 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendor who retains a superior title through an express vendor's lien in an executory contract for the sale of land may rescind the contract and recover the property upon the vendee's default. The vendor is not required to tender the return of purchase money paid if equitable considerations, such as the vendee's failure to pay taxes and a decline in property value, offset the amount paid.
Facts:
- On May 15, 1929, Thornton sold a parcel of land to Harry Earle, retaining a vendor's lien to secure a $4,000 note for the unpaid purchase price, which was payable in monthly installments.
- Earle made all monthly payments until his death on August 24, 1931.
- After Earle's death, McMahon was appointed administrator of his estate and continued to make monthly payments until January 1934.
- McMahon made no payments for four months in early 1934.
- In May 1934, Thornton agreed to accept reduced monthly payments of $25 for one year, with the understanding that the delinquent payments would be made up by the end of the year and the original $50 payments would resume.
- McMahon also failed to pay several hundred dollars in property taxes on the property for five years.
- On May 14, 1935, after the one-year reduced payment period ended, McMahon tendered another $25 payment.
- Thornton refused the payment, declared the entire debt matured due to the default on payments and taxes, and demanded payment of the full balance.
Procedural Posture:
- Thornton (appellee) sued McMahon, as administrator of Earle's estate (appellant), in the district court (trial court).
- Thornton's petition was in the form of trespass to try title, or alternatively, to foreclose the vendor's lien.
- The case was tried to the court without a jury.
- The trial court rendered a judgment canceling and rescinding the contract of sale and decreed that Thornton recover title and possession of the property.
- McMahon, as administrator, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
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 vendor who retains a superior title have the right to rescind an executory land sale contract and recover the property without refunding prior payments, when the vendee's estate has defaulted on payments, failed to pay property taxes for several years, and the property value has declined?
Opinions:
Majority - Walthall, Justice
Yes. A vendor who retains superior title in an executory land contract is entitled to rescind the sale and recover the property upon the vendee's default unless rescission would be inequitable. The court reasoned that the express reservation of the vendor's lien meant the superior title remained with Thornton. Upon McMahon's default in payment of the note and taxes, his possession became wrongful. The court found that rescission was not inequitable because McMahon failed to pay or offer to pay the balance due, allowed significant taxes to accumulate, and the property's value had declined. The court balanced the equities, concluding that the value of the estate's use of the property and the unpaid taxes were roughly equal to the payments made, thus Thornton was not required to refund the purchase money as a condition of rescission. Further, the court held that Thornton's prior acceptance of payments did not constitute a waiver of his right to rescind upon subsequent default.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength of the vendor's superior title remedy in Texas real estate law. It clarifies that the right of rescission is not absolute but is subject to equitable considerations. The decision establishes that a court will conduct a balancing test, weighing the payments made by the vendee against the vendee's defaults (like non-payment of taxes) and the economic realities (like declining property value and the value of possession). This provides a significant protection for sellers in executory contracts, allowing them to reclaim property without being obligated to refund payments where the vendee's breach has caused corresponding financial harm or liability.
