Young v. Fitts
1942 Tex. LEXIS 323, 138 Tex. 136, 157 S.W.2d 873 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendee's offer to pay the outstanding balance on a vendor's lien note, even if made late in litigation without a physical tender of cash, is sufficient to defeat the vendor's harsh remedy of rescission if equitable factors weigh in the vendee's favor. Such factors include long indulgence by the vendor in collecting the debt, the small proportion of the remaining debt to the total purchase price, and the vendor's refusal to state the amount due or accept payment.
Facts:
- On November 5, 1913, C. O. Young purchased 155.8 acres of land from T. F. Lowe.
- As part of the consideration, Young assumed a $1,750 note secured by a vendor's lien on the property.
- Over the next two decades, Young paid off all other debts associated with the purchase and made partial payments on the $1,750 note.
- On November 1, 1932, Young and his wife executed a new $1,000 note, representing the remaining balance, which renewed the original vendor's lien and was payable in 1937.
- This $1,000 note was eventually transferred and assigned to Earl C. Fitts.
- After acquiring the note, Fitts never made a demand on Young for its payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl C. Fitts filed an action in trespass to try title against C. O. Young and Pearl Young in the trial court to gain title and possession of their land.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Fitts moved for an instructed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for Fitts.
- The Youngs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Fitts, the appellee.
- The Youngs, as petitioners, then sought review from the Commission of 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 vendee's verbal offer to pay the entire balance due on a vendor's lien note, made after the trial court has indicated it will direct a verdict against him but before judgment is entered, constitute a sufficient tender to defeat the vendor's right to rescind the sale and recover the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Judge Brewster
Yes. A vendee's offer to pay the outstanding debt constitutes a sufficient tender to defeat rescission where strong equitable circumstances exist. The court reasoned that rescission is a harsh and disfavored remedy, and courts will seize upon 'slight circumstances' to protect a vendee from forfeiture, especially when a large portion of the purchase price has been paid. Here, the equities favored Young due to several factors: 1) the long lapse of time (over 25 years) during which the noteholders had shown indulgence and never demanded payment; 2) the small amount of the remaining debt ($1,000) compared to the original purchase price ($5,444.25); 3) Fitts's refusal to inform Young of the precise amount due for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance; and 4) Fitts's explicit statement that he would not accept payment. This conduct by Fitts waived the need for a formal tender of cash into the court, making Young's 'offer to do equity' sufficient to preserve his right to redeem the property.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the right to redeem property from a vendor's lien is a powerful equitable right that courts will protect against the harsh remedy of rescission. It establishes that a formal, technical tender of payment is not always necessary to defeat forfeiture; an 'offer to do equity' can suffice, particularly when the vendor's own conduct makes a formal tender futile or difficult. The decision instructs lower courts to look beyond the mere fact of default and weigh the entire history of the transaction, including delays and the parties' actions, to determine a fair outcome. This precedent reinforces that a vendor who has been indulgent for a long period cannot suddenly enforce rescission without first demanding payment and giving the vendee a reasonable opportunity to cure the default.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. Fitts