Patsourakos v. Kolioutos
26 A.2d 882, 1942 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 55, 132 N.J. Eq. 87 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A beneficiary who accepts a devise under a will cannot simultaneously assert an inconsistent legal claim, such as foreclosing on a mortgage, to defeat a valid contract, such as a lease with an option to purchase, that was executed by the testator concerning the devised property.
Facts:
- Michael Patsourakos owned a restaurant property which was subject to a mortgage.
- On February 14, 1940, Patsourakos leased the property to Donatos Kolioutos for ten years with an option to purchase for $10,000.
- On March 11, 1940, Patsourakos executed a will devising his entire estate, including the restaurant property, to his nephews, the complainants.
- On April 6, 1940, Patsourakos paid off the mortgage using funds he held in a declared trust for his nephews. He received the mortgage documents marked for cancellation but never officially recorded the cancellation.
- On September 1, 1941, Patsourakos and Kolioutos entered into a final agreement which renewed the ten-year lease and purchase option, and included a covenant for quiet enjoyment.
- Patsourakos died on September 28, 1941.
- After his death, the executor of Patsourakos's estate assigned the paid-off but uncancelled mortgage to the complainants.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainants (nephews of Michael Patsourakos) filed a bill of complaint against Donatos Kolioutos in the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, which is a court of equity.
- The complainants sought the remedy of strict foreclosure on the property occupied by the defendant.
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 devisee who accepts a property under a will, and also receives an assignment of a mortgage on that property from the testator's estate, have an equitable right to seek strict foreclosure to nullify a valid lease and purchase option granted by the testator to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. A devisee who accepts a property under a will cannot seek strict foreclosure to nullify a valid lease and option granted by the testator. The court reasoned that several fundamental principles of equity prevent the complainants from succeeding. First, under the doctrine of election, a person cannot accept a benefit under a will while simultaneously setting up a right of their own that would defeat the full operation of the will's intended effect or the testator's other legal obligations. Second, one who accepts a devise must take it 'cum onere,' or with the burden, meaning the complainants inherited the property subject to the valid lease and option created by their uncle. Third, the maxim that 'he who seeks equity must do equity' bars the complainants from using a harsh remedy to achieve an inequitable purpose against a party who has fully complied with his contractual obligations. Finally, the court found that strict foreclosure is an exceptional and harsh remedy not appropriate for this situation, which does not fall into any of the recognized categories where such a remedy is permitted in New Jersey.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the power of equity courts to prevent parties from using technical legal rights to achieve unjust outcomes. It illustrates the application of the doctrine of election and the principle of 'cum onere,' ensuring that beneficiaries of an estate cannot selectively enjoy the assets while repudiating the valid obligations attached to them by the decedent. The case serves as a precedent limiting the use of the harsh remedy of strict foreclosure, reinforcing that it should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and not as a tool to strategically nullify valid contracts. The ruling prioritizes the enforcement of contractual rights and the testator's intent over a devisee's attempt to inequitably enhance their inheritance.
