[175]*175CALLISTER, Justice:
Plaintiffs, residents of Wichita Falls, Texas, initiated this action to recover the unpaid balance of $69,666.56 on a vendor’s lien note executed by defendant. In November of 1965, plaintiffs sold defendant certain real property upon which the Motor Lodge Motel was situated in Wichita Falls for $200,000. Defendant conveyed his equity in a ranch in Colorado and executed a note for $100,000, secured by a trust deed on the motel property. The last payment made by defendant was in May of 1967. On October 12, 1967, James E. Pro-thro, the trustee, under the deed of trust, notified defendant by registered mail that if the default in payments on the note were not cured, he had been instructed to take the necessary steps to foreclose in accordance with the trust deed. Defendant did not respond, and thereafter, trustee, Pro-thro, posted notices in conformity with the trust deed and Texas law and sold the property at public auction to the highest bidder on January 2, 1968. Plaintiffs, the beneficiaries under the deed, made the highest bid and bought the property for $25,000. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed the instant action.
Defendant, in his answer, alleged that he received no notice of the sale and that the sale price of $25,000 was so inadequate as to constitute fraud and deceit. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendant opposed the motion on the ground that there was a disputed issue of fact, namely, the fair market value of the property, which defendant asserted he was entitled to offset against the indebtedness.
In the pretrial order, the trial court stated that defendant did not put in issue the sufficiency of the procedure whereby the trust deed was foreclosed. Defendant admitted that payments on the note were delinquent and plaintiffs were entitled to foreclose the collateral. However, defendant claimed that the price for which the property was purchased was sufficiently disproportionate to its reasonable value that he was entitled to assert as á defense a claim for credit on the indebtedness equal to the reasonable value of the prop- • erty.
The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ruled that the alleged unfairness of a trustee’s sale of the security to the beneficiary in Texas may be inquired into judicially’ when a subsequent action in Utah is brought for a deficiency judgment. The trial court acknowledged that under the law of Texas such judicial inquiry is not permitted, or, if allowed, its scope is most restricted. ' The court ruled that the policy of the state of Utah is clear and has been expressed in Section 57-1-32, U.C.A.1953, which provides that in an action to recover the balance due upon an obligation for which a trust deed was given as security, the court shall not render judgment for an' [176]*176amount more than the amount by which indebtedness with interest, costs and expenses exceeds the fair market value of the property sold as of the date of sale.
The instant matter was tried before the court, which found that the sale of the property for $25,000 was so low as to be unconscionable. The court found that the fair market value of the property on the date of sale was $97,500, which the court offset against defendant’s indebtedness to plaintiffs.1
On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court should have granted their motion for summary judgment and applied the law of Texas to the facts in this action.
What is the law of Texas ?
A sale regularly exercised under a power is equivalent to a strict foreclosure by a court of equity properly pursued. Article 3810, 12 Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, governing sales under a deed of trust, provides that notice of such proposed sale shall be given by posting written notice thereof for three consecutive weeks prior to the day of sale in three public places in said county. There is no requirement that personal notice be given to the mortgagor.2
The amount bid in at a foreclosure sale is the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt, if the sale were valid. If it should be found that the sale were invalid, then the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt is the reasonable market value of the mortgagor’s equity in the property at the time of the foreclosure sale.3
The fact that the property is worth substantially more than the balance owing on the note and substantially more than the price at which the beneficiary bought it at the foreclosure sale is not recognized by the law of Texas as a basis for invalidating such a sale. A trustee’s sale will not be set aside merely because of inadequate price. There must be evidence of irregularity which caused or contributed to cause the property to be sold for a grossly inadequate price.4
A case directly in point is Koehler v. Pioneer Insurance Company,5 which was an action to recover the balance due on a note after a trust deed foreclosure sale. [177]*177Defendant, Koehler, had executed a note in the sum of $100,000 and a deed of trust securing payment. Defendant defaulted in his payments, and the trustee, after posting notices, sold the property to plaintiff for $25,000, which was credited on the note. In the subsequent action on the note, plaintiff moved for and was granted summary judgment. On appeal, defendant asserted that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether the foreclosure sale was invalid due to the gross inadequacy of price. The appellate court observed that mere inadequacy of consideration, alone, does not render a foreclosure sale void, if the sale were legally and fairly made. The court stated:
In the words of Justice Williams in Castle v. Appliance Buyers Credit Corporation, 410 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App., 1966, no writ hist.), “The real theory of appellants’ appeal seems to be nothing more than a collateral attack upon a trustee sale held prior to the institution of this suit. Appellants’ contention that the consideration paid by appellee corporation for the property at the trustee sale was inadequate is in itself insufficient to constitute a valid attack on the sale.”
In the instant action, the pretrial order specified that the defendant did not put in issue the sufficiency of the procedure whereby the trust deed was foreclosed. Under Texas law, if the sale were valid, the amount bid in at the foreclosure sale is the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt. If the law of Texas were applicable to the instant action, the trial court erred and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Therefore, the issue to be resolved in this appeal is a choice-of-law question.
A review of the significant contacts in this action reveals that the situs of the property conveyed by the trust deed, the performance of the obligation of the note, and the residency of the plaintiffs were in Texas. Defendant in his answer admitted that he was a resident of Utah but testified at the trial that he was a resident of Fruita, Colorado. Defendant executed the note and trust deed in Colorado, and the property he traded as part of the transaction was located there.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[175]*175CALLISTER, Justice:
Plaintiffs, residents of Wichita Falls, Texas, initiated this action to recover the unpaid balance of $69,666.56 on a vendor’s lien note executed by defendant. In November of 1965, plaintiffs sold defendant certain real property upon which the Motor Lodge Motel was situated in Wichita Falls for $200,000. Defendant conveyed his equity in a ranch in Colorado and executed a note for $100,000, secured by a trust deed on the motel property. The last payment made by defendant was in May of 1967. On October 12, 1967, James E. Pro-thro, the trustee, under the deed of trust, notified defendant by registered mail that if the default in payments on the note were not cured, he had been instructed to take the necessary steps to foreclose in accordance with the trust deed. Defendant did not respond, and thereafter, trustee, Pro-thro, posted notices in conformity with the trust deed and Texas law and sold the property at public auction to the highest bidder on January 2, 1968. Plaintiffs, the beneficiaries under the deed, made the highest bid and bought the property for $25,000. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed the instant action.
Defendant, in his answer, alleged that he received no notice of the sale and that the sale price of $25,000 was so inadequate as to constitute fraud and deceit. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendant opposed the motion on the ground that there was a disputed issue of fact, namely, the fair market value of the property, which defendant asserted he was entitled to offset against the indebtedness.
In the pretrial order, the trial court stated that defendant did not put in issue the sufficiency of the procedure whereby the trust deed was foreclosed. Defendant admitted that payments on the note were delinquent and plaintiffs were entitled to foreclose the collateral. However, defendant claimed that the price for which the property was purchased was sufficiently disproportionate to its reasonable value that he was entitled to assert as á defense a claim for credit on the indebtedness equal to the reasonable value of the prop- • erty.
The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ruled that the alleged unfairness of a trustee’s sale of the security to the beneficiary in Texas may be inquired into judicially’ when a subsequent action in Utah is brought for a deficiency judgment. The trial court acknowledged that under the law of Texas such judicial inquiry is not permitted, or, if allowed, its scope is most restricted. ' The court ruled that the policy of the state of Utah is clear and has been expressed in Section 57-1-32, U.C.A.1953, which provides that in an action to recover the balance due upon an obligation for which a trust deed was given as security, the court shall not render judgment for an' [176]*176amount more than the amount by which indebtedness with interest, costs and expenses exceeds the fair market value of the property sold as of the date of sale.
The instant matter was tried before the court, which found that the sale of the property for $25,000 was so low as to be unconscionable. The court found that the fair market value of the property on the date of sale was $97,500, which the court offset against defendant’s indebtedness to plaintiffs.1
On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court should have granted their motion for summary judgment and applied the law of Texas to the facts in this action.
What is the law of Texas ?
A sale regularly exercised under a power is equivalent to a strict foreclosure by a court of equity properly pursued. Article 3810, 12 Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, governing sales under a deed of trust, provides that notice of such proposed sale shall be given by posting written notice thereof for three consecutive weeks prior to the day of sale in three public places in said county. There is no requirement that personal notice be given to the mortgagor.2
The amount bid in at a foreclosure sale is the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt, if the sale were valid. If it should be found that the sale were invalid, then the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt is the reasonable market value of the mortgagor’s equity in the property at the time of the foreclosure sale.3
The fact that the property is worth substantially more than the balance owing on the note and substantially more than the price at which the beneficiary bought it at the foreclosure sale is not recognized by the law of Texas as a basis for invalidating such a sale. A trustee’s sale will not be set aside merely because of inadequate price. There must be evidence of irregularity which caused or contributed to cause the property to be sold for a grossly inadequate price.4
A case directly in point is Koehler v. Pioneer Insurance Company,5 which was an action to recover the balance due on a note after a trust deed foreclosure sale. [177]*177Defendant, Koehler, had executed a note in the sum of $100,000 and a deed of trust securing payment. Defendant defaulted in his payments, and the trustee, after posting notices, sold the property to plaintiff for $25,000, which was credited on the note. In the subsequent action on the note, plaintiff moved for and was granted summary judgment. On appeal, defendant asserted that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether the foreclosure sale was invalid due to the gross inadequacy of price. The appellate court observed that mere inadequacy of consideration, alone, does not render a foreclosure sale void, if the sale were legally and fairly made. The court stated:
In the words of Justice Williams in Castle v. Appliance Buyers Credit Corporation, 410 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App., 1966, no writ hist.), “The real theory of appellants’ appeal seems to be nothing more than a collateral attack upon a trustee sale held prior to the institution of this suit. Appellants’ contention that the consideration paid by appellee corporation for the property at the trustee sale was inadequate is in itself insufficient to constitute a valid attack on the sale.”
In the instant action, the pretrial order specified that the defendant did not put in issue the sufficiency of the procedure whereby the trust deed was foreclosed. Under Texas law, if the sale were valid, the amount bid in at the foreclosure sale is the proper amount to credit on the mortgagor’s debt. If the law of Texas were applicable to the instant action, the trial court erred and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Therefore, the issue to be resolved in this appeal is a choice-of-law question.
A review of the significant contacts in this action reveals that the situs of the property conveyed by the trust deed, the performance of the obligation of the note, and the residency of the plaintiffs were in Texas. Defendant in his answer admitted that he was a resident of Utah but testified at the trial that he was a resident of Fruita, Colorado. Defendant executed the note and trust deed in Colorado, and the property he traded as part of the transaction was located there.
If the right to recover a deficiency is not prohibited by the law of the situs of the mortgaged property and the situs of the contract of mortgage indebtedness, the state of the forum has no interest in denying such right to deficiency allowed by the law of the situs, and will, generally speaking, give effect to that right, even though by a local statute that right to recover the deficiency is denied absolutely or conditionally (such statutes being ordinarily construed as having reference to deficiencies arising from foreclosures of mortgages on property within the state — * * *), unless [178]*178the policy behind such statute is regarded as a fundamental part of the public policy of the state, which will be violated by the enforcement of a right to deficiency, even one arising from a foreclosure without the state. * * *6
Defendant successfully asserted before the trial court that Section S7-1-32, U.C.A. 1953, constituted a public policy of this jurisdiction and the courts of this State need not give full faith and credit to the laws of Texas in contravention to the public policy of Utah. Defendant reasoned that the Legislature has deemed as inimical to the interest of the public the enforcement of personal liability upon an obligation secured by a trust deed without granting a credit to the extent of the fair market value of the property.
There are jurisdictions where anti-deficiency statutes have been construed as a legislative expression of public policy. In such instances, the courts, although admitting the validity of the contract in the state where it was executed and to be performed, have denied enforcement thereof by appropriate legal remedy, i. e., if the contract be contrary to the public policy of the forum, remedy will be denied.7
* * * But whether a forum statute would be applied to protect a defendant sued on a deficiency relating to foreign land, must depend on the interpretation of the statute in the light of its policy. * * * 8
There are two aspects which must be considered in the interpretation of the forum statute. First, does the language of Section 57-1-32, U.C.A.1953, express a legislative intent to extend its protection to all debtors whose obligations are secured by trust deeds, regardless of the situs of the land? Secondly, is there a public policy in this jurisdiction that restricts plaintiffs’ remedy?
• Section 57-1-32, U.C.A.1953, provides:
At any time within three months after any sale of property under a trust deed, as hereinabove provided, an action may be commenced to recover the balance due upon the obligation for which the trust deed was given as security, * * * Before rendering judgment, the court shall find the fair market value at the date of sale of the property sold. The court shall not render judgment for more than the amount [179]*179by which the amount of the indebtedness with interest and the costs and expenses of sale, including trustee’s and attorney’s fees, exceeds the fair market value of the property or interest therein sold as of the date of the sale, * *.
[Emphasis added.]
The aforementioned emphasized language in the statute refers solely to the sale of property situated within Utah; the entire statutory scheme concerning trust deeds, as provided in Sections 57-1-19 through 57-1-36, could not have any extra-territorial effect. We must, therefore, conclude that the statutory protection extended solely to debtors whose obligations were secured by trust deeds on land in Utah.9
Finally, should plaintiffs be denied their remedy on the ground that it contravenes the public policy of the forum?
* * * Where the question has arisen in other jurisdictions it has generally been held that recovery of a deficiency judgment otherwise allowable under the law of the situs of the mortgaged property and the contract indebtedness which secures it is not violative of the public policy of the State of the forum on grounds of public policy although contrary to the rule in effect in such state. * * * The traditional test used in determining whether the public policy of the forum prevents the application of otherwise applicable conflict-of-laws principles was well expressed by Justice Cardozo in Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 224 N.Y. 99, 120 N.E. 198, to the effect that foreign law will not be applied if it “would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.” * * *10
[180]*180Would the enforcement of plaintiff’s remedy violate the fundamental law which forms a cornerstone of Utah’s jurisprudence? We must respond in the negative. Not only does the language of Section 57-1-32, U.C.A.1953, indicate a legislative intent that the relief provided debtors is restricted to trust deeds on Utah land, but the underlying policy of the law, with the noted statutory exception, is otherwise. In excluded.
First National Bank of Salt Lake City v. Haymond,11 this court stated:
* * * Under our laws affecting the foreclosure of mortgages, we can see no escape from the conclusion that a mortgagee is entitled to have the mortgaged property sold under foreclosure sale, and, in the event the property does not sell for sufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt, to have a deficiency judgment entered in the usual way, notwithstanding the value of the mortgaged property is in excess of the debt owing to the mortgagee. * * * Moreover, to require the mortgagee to accept the mortgaged property in lieu of the money which the mortgagors have agreed to pay would be to make a contract for the parties contrary to their agreement. This the courts may not do. * * *
There is one other'aspect of this appeal which merits comment, namely, under both Texas and Utah law, a sale, when made in compliance with the applicable statutes, is valid and binding and the rights and interests of the parties are fixed thereby.12 In both jurisdictions, substantial inadequacy of price coupled with fraud, mistake or other unfair dealing is sufficient to justify a court of equity, upon timely motion, to set aside the sale and order a resale.13 Of course, it is beyond the power of the courts of this State to set aside a sale in Texas, and defendant has failed to take any action in the courts of Texas. Defendant has strenuously urged that to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is tantamount to giving full faith and credit to a Texas in personam deficiency judgment, when there has been no judicial action and no personal jurisdiction over defendant in Texas. This contention misapprehends the nature of a foreclosure, which operates as a payment of the debt to the amount received at the sale. It is not a judgment, with any of its incidents, but is simply a record evidencing a debt, which can only be discharged by payment.14
A review of the record indicates no ground upon which the judgment of the [181]*181trial court can be sustained. This cause must be reversed and remanded to the trial •court with an order to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Costs are awarded to plaintiffs.
HENRIOD and ELLETT, JJ., concur.