Security Trust Co. v. Solomon

Michigan Supreme Court

Security Trust Co. v. Solomon

216 N.W. 405, 241 Mich. 52, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 973

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1927

DocketDocket No. 134.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 216 N.W. 405 (Security Trust Co. v. Solomon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Security Trust Co. v. Solomon, 216 N.W. 405, 241 Mich. 52, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 973 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpe, C. J.

In this suit, brought to foreclose a mortgage executed to plaintiff as trustee to secure a bond issue, and in which it was appointed a receiver of the property, the trial court allowed it for “expenses for attorneys’ fees” the sum of $1,500. The defendant Lena Solomon, a second mortgagee, appeals from such allowance.

This court has repeatedly held that a specified sum stipulated in a mortgage to be chargeable as attorneys’ fees on foreclosure is not enforceable. Curtis v. Mueller, 184 Mich. 148, and cases cited.

This mortgage provided:

*54 “Upon sale being made by any of the methods in this indenture provided for, the trustee shall first take from the proceeds thereof all costs, disbursements, and expenses of such proceedings, as well as the expenses, disbursements, and reasonable compensations of the trustee and of its counsel, and shall apply the remainder as follows:

“(1) To the payment of all taxes, insurance, assessments, rates, charges, labor or mechanic’s liens due and unpaid.

“ (2) To the payment of all the principal and interest of the bonds then outstanding in full if such proceeds be sufficient, but if not, then pro rata, without preference or priority of one bond over another, or of interest over principal.

“(3) To the pro rata payment of any income tax due the holder or holders of any bond or bonds or interest coupons, in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore set forth.

“(4) The payment of the surplus, if any, to the mortgagor, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns.”

The mortgagor thereby agreed that the plaintiff should deduct the reasonable compensation of its attorneys, if foreclosure be had, before the surplus, if any, should be payable to him. The appellant is in no better position to attack this allowance than the mortgagor would be. No claim is made that the amount allowed is not a reasonable compensation for the service rendered. This court has sustained such allowances when contested in Union Trust Co. v. Railway, 127 Mich. 252, 269, and in Union Trust Co. v. Amusement Co., 163 Mich. 687. There is no reason, apparent to us, why we should not do so in this case.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee against appellant.

Bird, Flannigan, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, and McDonald, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Snow took no part in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sharpe, C. J.

In this suit, brought to foreclose a mortgage executed to plaintiff as trustee to secure a bond issue, and in which it was appointed a receiver of the property, the trial court allowed it for “expenses for attorneys’ fees” the sum of $1,500. The defendant Lena Solomon, a second mortgagee, appeals from such allowance.

This court has repeatedly held that a specified sum stipulated in a mortgage to be chargeable as attorneys’ fees on foreclosure is not enforceable. Curtis v. Mueller, 184 Mich. 148, and cases cited.

This mortgage provided:

*54 “Upon sale being made by any of the methods in this indenture provided for, the trustee shall first take from the proceeds thereof all costs, disbursements, and expenses of such proceedings, as well as the expenses, disbursements, and reasonable compensations of the trustee and of its counsel, and shall apply the remainder as follows:

“(1) To the payment of all taxes, insurance, assessments, rates, charges, labor or mechanic’s liens due and unpaid.

“ (2) To the payment of all the principal and interest of the bonds then outstanding in full if such proceeds be sufficient, but if not, then pro rata, without preference or priority of one bond over another, or of interest over principal.

“(3) To the pro rata payment of any income tax due the holder or holders of any bond or bonds or interest coupons, in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore set forth.

“(4) The payment of the surplus, if any, to the mortgagor, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns.”

The mortgagor thereby agreed that the plaintiff should deduct the reasonable compensation of its attorneys, if foreclosure be had, before the surplus, if any, should be payable to him. The appellant is in no better position to attack this allowance than the mortgagor would be. No claim is made that the amount allowed is not a reasonable compensation for the service rendered. This court has sustained such allowances when contested in Union Trust Co. v. Railway, 127 Mich. 252, 269, and in Union Trust Co. v. Amusement Co., 163 Mich. 687. There is no reason, apparent to us, why we should not do so in this case.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee against appellant.

Bird, Flannigan, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, and McDonald, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Snow took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W. 405, 241 Mich. 52, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-trust-co-v-solomon-mich-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack