Mu. Chief Justice Del 'Tobo
delivered the opinion of the • , Court.
This case deals with the nullity of a foreclosure proceeding. The complaint sets np, in brief, that in June, 1926, the defendant, The Union Central Life Insurance Company, filed in the District Court of Mayagiiez a “motion for a demand for payment” alleging that the plaintiff, Carlos Sabater, and his wife had executed a mortgage in its favor on a certain rural property, for $10,000 principal, $13,491.80 interest, and $500 costs, divided into twenty annual promissory notes for $1,174.59 each, the first one falling due in November, 1921; that the debtor had not paid any of the installments, for which reason the debt was alleged to be due, and the amount of the installments and the interest were specified, the allegation closing with the following “Summary: Principal $14,666.11, Interest $7,996.25, Costs and Attorney’s Fees $500,” showing that $23,162.36 was the amount due; that in accordance with said motion, on June 2,1926, the court issued an order providing that a demand for payment be served on the debtor, which was done by the marshal fourteen days later; that on September 26, 1926, The Union Central Life Insurance Company filed a motion, which was not served on the debtor and of which he had no knowledge, stating that a mistake had been made in the petition and order requiring payment, with respect to the addition of the amounts of interest, for which reason it was presenting a corrected statement amounting to $18,355.21, and requesting that the mortgaged property be sold at public auction for the payment of the debt as shown [845] in the last statement; that on October 15, 1926, the court ordered the sale of the property according to the last statement; and that on November 15, 1926, the marshal proceeded to sell the mortgaged property, and on the same day the defendant, without serving notice on the plaintiff or his wife, and without their knowledge, requested the court to issue an additional order amending the order of sale to correct the amounts which should be finally paid, changing the total due from $18,855.21 to $19,054.96, and providing that the sale be held for the latter amount. The plaintiff insists on the differences above noted, and finally alleges that, in accordance with the mortgage deed, the amount truly owed was the principal amount of the loan, $10,000, plus interest on this sum at 10 per cent per annum for six years, or, $6,000, and the amount of the taxes unpaid which is not specified. The complaint closes with the prayer for a decree holding the foreclosure proceeding to be null and void, with costs to the plaintiff.
The defendant’s answer covers five typewritten pages. It is long and confused. It admits the corrections, explains them, and maintains that everything was done openly, and in the end the plaintiff was required to pay only what he in fact owed.
The case went to trial, and on February 25, 1931, the court rendered judgment against the defendant. The conclusions of law on which its judgment was based were:
“First: Since the complaint in the foreclosure proceeding alleged that the debtor had not paid any of the installments, and since the proceeding was brought for failure to pay the first installments due, there is no doubt that the foreclosing mortgagee made an error in collecting its credit, which rendered the entire proceeding null, for the reason that, if the total amount of the loan including interest accumulated for a term of 20 years is, according to the mortgage deed, $23,491.80, and if only five years’ interest was claimed as a result of the failure to pay, it is not possible for the amount claimed to reach $23,162.36, which is almost equal to the entire amount of the loan with interest accumulated for twenty years. For the’ very [846] reason that the total amount of $23,491.80, which was involved, included the principal and interest accumulated for 20 years at 10% per annum, the foreclosing mortgagee should really have broken down the loan transaction and included interest for the time elapsed only, which was the interest actually due, and had it done so, the amount claimed would never have exceeded $*15,000', covering principal and interest accumulated for five years, to which sum there should have been added the amount of taxes on the mortgaged property paid by the foreclosing creditor corporation.
“Second: The foreclosing mortgagee having caused a demand to be served on the debtor for the payment of an amount almost equal to the entire loan, including interest accumulated for 20 years, that is, for $23,162.36, and having later caused the auction .to be advertised for a smaller amount, to wit, $18,855.21, and later, on the very day of the auction, having corrected this amount and bought in the mortgaged property for an amount larger than that announced in the notices of sale, and smaller than that set out in the demand for payment, that is, for $19,054.96, there is no doubt whatever that the procedure fixed by law was not followed, the sum of $500 covering-costs and the fees of the attorney for the foreclosing corporation having also been included in the amount for which the property was bought in, without previous assessment of the costs really incurred, or of the fees which were properly payable to the attorney for the foreclosing mortgagee. ’ ’
The defendant appealed.
An examination of the judgment roll and of the statement of the ease shows that the mortgage to which the complaint refers was in fact executed, the plaintiff acknowledging himself to be indebted to the defendant for the sum of $10,000 which he promised to pay with interest, computed and agreed at $13,491.80, in twenty annual installments. Accordingly twenty promissory notes were executed, for $1,174.59 each, totalling the principal and interest above indicated, that is, the sum of $23,491.80.
The contracting parties stipulated that in the event of nonpayment of a note at maturity, the entire debt would be considered due, with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of maturity of each note. It was also agreed that [847] the company would pay the taxes in case the debtor should fail to do so, and obtain reimbursement for them with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The sum of $500 was fixed for costs in the event of foreclosure.
Five notes had fallen due when the summary foreclosure proceeding authorized by the Mortgage Law was brought. Each of these notes was set out in detail in the complaint, and their amounts added, totalling $5,732, since only $1,033.64 was claimed on the first note. To this amount was added that of $8,934.11, as the balance of the principal, and the following result was obtained: $14,666.11. Then the interest accrued on each of the notes due, and on the rest of the principal,
was specified as follows:
‘ ‘ INTEREST
‘ ‘ On the first note from November 1, 1921; to April 1, 1926_ $547. 84
“On the second note from November 1, 1922 to April 1, 1926_ 481.58
“On the third note from November 1,. 1923 to April 1, 1926_ 340. 63
“On the fourth note from November 1, 1924 to April 1, 1926_-_ 199. 68
“On the' fifth note from November 1, 1925 to April 1, 1926_ 58. 73
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mu. Chief Justice Del 'Tobo
delivered the opinion of the • , Court.
This case deals with the nullity of a foreclosure proceeding. The complaint sets np, in brief, that in June, 1926, the defendant, The Union Central Life Insurance Company, filed in the District Court of Mayagiiez a “motion for a demand for payment” alleging that the plaintiff, Carlos Sabater, and his wife had executed a mortgage in its favor on a certain rural property, for $10,000 principal, $13,491.80 interest, and $500 costs, divided into twenty annual promissory notes for $1,174.59 each, the first one falling due in November, 1921; that the debtor had not paid any of the installments, for which reason the debt was alleged to be due, and the amount of the installments and the interest were specified, the allegation closing with the following “Summary: Principal $14,666.11, Interest $7,996.25, Costs and Attorney’s Fees $500,” showing that $23,162.36 was the amount due; that in accordance with said motion, on June 2,1926, the court issued an order providing that a demand for payment be served on the debtor, which was done by the marshal fourteen days later; that on September 26, 1926, The Union Central Life Insurance Company filed a motion, which was not served on the debtor and of which he had no knowledge, stating that a mistake had been made in the petition and order requiring payment, with respect to the addition of the amounts of interest, for which reason it was presenting a corrected statement amounting to $18,355.21, and requesting that the mortgaged property be sold at public auction for the payment of the debt as shown [845] in the last statement; that on October 15, 1926, the court ordered the sale of the property according to the last statement; and that on November 15, 1926, the marshal proceeded to sell the mortgaged property, and on the same day the defendant, without serving notice on the plaintiff or his wife, and without their knowledge, requested the court to issue an additional order amending the order of sale to correct the amounts which should be finally paid, changing the total due from $18,855.21 to $19,054.96, and providing that the sale be held for the latter amount. The plaintiff insists on the differences above noted, and finally alleges that, in accordance with the mortgage deed, the amount truly owed was the principal amount of the loan, $10,000, plus interest on this sum at 10 per cent per annum for six years, or, $6,000, and the amount of the taxes unpaid which is not specified. The complaint closes with the prayer for a decree holding the foreclosure proceeding to be null and void, with costs to the plaintiff.
The defendant’s answer covers five typewritten pages. It is long and confused. It admits the corrections, explains them, and maintains that everything was done openly, and in the end the plaintiff was required to pay only what he in fact owed.
The case went to trial, and on February 25, 1931, the court rendered judgment against the defendant. The conclusions of law on which its judgment was based were:
“First: Since the complaint in the foreclosure proceeding alleged that the debtor had not paid any of the installments, and since the proceeding was brought for failure to pay the first installments due, there is no doubt that the foreclosing mortgagee made an error in collecting its credit, which rendered the entire proceeding null, for the reason that, if the total amount of the loan including interest accumulated for a term of 20 years is, according to the mortgage deed, $23,491.80, and if only five years’ interest was claimed as a result of the failure to pay, it is not possible for the amount claimed to reach $23,162.36, which is almost equal to the entire amount of the loan with interest accumulated for twenty years. For the’ very [846] reason that the total amount of $23,491.80, which was involved, included the principal and interest accumulated for 20 years at 10% per annum, the foreclosing mortgagee should really have broken down the loan transaction and included interest for the time elapsed only, which was the interest actually due, and had it done so, the amount claimed would never have exceeded $*15,000', covering principal and interest accumulated for five years, to which sum there should have been added the amount of taxes on the mortgaged property paid by the foreclosing creditor corporation.
“Second: The foreclosing mortgagee having caused a demand to be served on the debtor for the payment of an amount almost equal to the entire loan, including interest accumulated for 20 years, that is, for $23,162.36, and having later caused the auction .to be advertised for a smaller amount, to wit, $18,855.21, and later, on the very day of the auction, having corrected this amount and bought in the mortgaged property for an amount larger than that announced in the notices of sale, and smaller than that set out in the demand for payment, that is, for $19,054.96, there is no doubt whatever that the procedure fixed by law was not followed, the sum of $500 covering-costs and the fees of the attorney for the foreclosing corporation having also been included in the amount for which the property was bought in, without previous assessment of the costs really incurred, or of the fees which were properly payable to the attorney for the foreclosing mortgagee. ’ ’
The defendant appealed.
An examination of the judgment roll and of the statement of the ease shows that the mortgage to which the complaint refers was in fact executed, the plaintiff acknowledging himself to be indebted to the defendant for the sum of $10,000 which he promised to pay with interest, computed and agreed at $13,491.80, in twenty annual installments. Accordingly twenty promissory notes were executed, for $1,174.59 each, totalling the principal and interest above indicated, that is, the sum of $23,491.80.
The contracting parties stipulated that in the event of nonpayment of a note at maturity, the entire debt would be considered due, with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of maturity of each note. It was also agreed that [847] the company would pay the taxes in case the debtor should fail to do so, and obtain reimbursement for them with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The sum of $500 was fixed for costs in the event of foreclosure.
Five notes had fallen due when the summary foreclosure proceeding authorized by the Mortgage Law was brought. Each of these notes was set out in detail in the complaint, and their amounts added, totalling $5,732, since only $1,033.64 was claimed on the first note. To this amount was added that of $8,934.11, as the balance of the principal, and the following result was obtained: $14,666.11. Then the interest accrued on each of the notes due, and on the rest of the principal,
was specified as follows:
‘ ‘ INTEREST
‘ ‘ On the first note from November 1, 1921; to April 1, 1926_ $547. 84
“On the second note from November 1, 1922 to April 1, 1926_ 481.58
“On the third note from November 1,. 1923 to April 1, 1926_ 340. 63
“On the fourth note from November 1, 1924 to April 1, 1926_-_ 199. 68
“On the' fifth note from November 1, 1925 to April 1, 1926_ 58. 73
“10 per cent on the balance of the principal $8,934.11, from November 1, 1925 to April 1, 1926_ 372. 25
“Total_$7,732.71.”
The sum which appears above was included in the summary to which we referred when abstracting the complaint, and a total of $23,162.36 was obtained, for the payment of which demand was served on the debtor who has now brought this nullity suit.
A revisión of the total of the interest items suffices to show that it is not $7,732.71 but $2,000.71. Having noticed the [848] error, the foreclosing mortgagee asked that it he corrected as follows:
“Balance of principal cine_ $8,934.11
“Notes cine from 1921 to 1925_ 5, 732. 0Ó
“Kedemption and taxes_ 863.30
“Total principal_$15,529.41
“Interest on the balance of the principal, on the five notes, and on the taxes and redemption of the property_ 2, 825. 80
“Total_$18,355.21
“And costs and fees_ 500.00
“Grand Total_$18,855.21.”
It will be seen that an item of $863.30 is added for redemption and taxes, and that interest on this sum is included in the item covering interest on the five notes due and on the balance of the principal. The documents relating* to the redemption of the property and the payment of the taxes were filed with the motion. The total amounts to $18,855.21, instead of the $23,162.36 set out in the demand for payment.
The motion requesting the correction was not served on the mortgage debtor, and was granted.
Notices were published announcing the sale of the mortgaged property at public auction, in which the sum claimed, as corrected, was specified.
On the very day of the sale, another correction was made on motion of the foreclosing mortgagee which was not served on the debtor, as follows:
“Principal_ $8,652.93
“Taxes_ 863.30
“Interest to date of sale, November 15, 1926_.- 9, 038. 73
“Costs and fees- 500. 00
“Total_$19,054.96.”-
Do these corrections, made in the manner set forth, render the mortgage foreclosure proceeding in this case void?
[849] The inclusion of the item of $500 for costs and fees “without previous assessment of the costs really incurred” is no longer of importance since the decision of this Court in the case of Arsuaga v. Corte, 43 P.R.R.-