Summary: In his 2005 divorce Plaintiff Benefiel was awarded $25,000 alimony in lieu of property regarding the marital residence and the former Mrs. Benefiel was awarded the residence. A payment plan for this amount was entered into the divorce decree, along with a provision that if Mrs. Benefiel failed to timely make any of these payments that the residence would revert to Mr. Benefiel. The final $5,000 payment was to be made January 31, 2008. The divorce decree was not entered into the land records maintained by the county. Mrs. Benefiel then sold the residence to Boulton. The divorce decree did appear in the abstract of title when Boulton bought the residence, but the title opinion failed to note this as a cloud on the title. After the sale of the residence, Mrs. Benefiel failed to make the 2008 payment and Mr. Benefiel filed suit seeking immediate return of the residence.
This matter has been in litigation for years. Previously the trial court ruled in favor of Benefiel. Boulton appealed and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled: 1) Benefiel held a perfected lien on the property; 2) that the lien Benefiel held was analogous to a mortgage lien; and, 3) that the immediate reversion provision of the lien was invalid because it did not provide Boulton with the opportunity to redeem the property. The matter was remanded to the trial court. Boulton then tendered $5,000 as redemption of the property, which Benefiel refused because it did not include interest and costs incurred. Boulton later tendered an additional amount as interest on the $5,000 but refused to tender attorneys fees and costs. The trial court ruled that Boulton's attempted redemption was inadequate, and Boulton again appealed.
Legal Issues: The Court looked to the Oklahoma Statutes regarding the right of redemption found at 42 O.S. §18 and §20. It held that the right of redemption extends past a judicial sale and extends up to the point of an order confirming the judicial sale. It also found that the amount required to redeem a property includes the full principal balance and "damages for delay". The Court ruled that these damages are interest, and not attorneys fees and costs. Thus, under the redemption statutes themselves there is not a right to recover attorney fees and costs.
In so doing, the Court revisited its ruling in Smith v. Robinson, 1979 OK 57. In that case the Court was looking at an instance where the attempted redemption took place prior to the filing of a lawsuit. In Smith the Court ruled that a redemption would cut off the possibility of attorneys fees and costs under the then active statutes. The Court differentiated the present case from that case based both upon the fact that the redemption was proffered prior to the filing of the suit and also under the statutes that were in effect at that time which are no longer in effect.
The Court also noted that Boulton was the prevailing party on the issue of quiet title in that Benefiel was required to offer an opportunity for redemption, and Benefiel was the prevailing party on the issue of lien foreclosure in that he was ruled to have a perfected lien. The whole mess of determining attorneys fees and costs was then remanded to the trial court.
Discussion: Justice Watt, joined by Justices Kauger and Colbert entered a concurring opinion noting that the division of attorney fees in this matter to be a matter of equity. As such, these justices expressed the opinion that the trial court was in the best position to gauge the conduct of the various parties and to take that conduct in full account in its award of attorneys fees.
No comments:
Post a Comment