## Facts

- William J. Garland and his wife mortgaged certain real property to Grover T. Garland.
- William and his wife later conveyed the property to Marcella A. Vincent, expressly “subject to the mortgage.”
- Vincent did not pay the mortgage when it came due.
- Grover filed a foreclosure action against William, William’s wife, and Vincent.
- While the foreclosure action was pending, William paid Grover the amount due on the mortgage.
- Grover dismissed the foreclosure action as to William and his wife, but Grover and William agreed that Grover would continue the foreclosure action against Vincent.
- The trial court entered a foreclosure decree, and the property was sold by the sheriff to Grover, based on Grover’s promise that he was purchasing on William’s behalf.
- Near the end of the redemption period, Vincent filed a separate action to quiet title against Grover and the other defendants.
- The quiet title case was tried on stipulated facts, and the trial court entered judgment that Vincent take nothing and had no right, title, or interest in the property.
- Vincent moved for a new trial; the motion was denied. Vincent then filed her notice of appeal within 30 days of the denial of the new-trial motion, but more than 60 days after notice of entry of judgment.

## Issues

1. Was the appeal timely where the case was tried on stipulated facts and the notice of appeal was filed within the time measured from the denial of a motion for new trial?
2. Can a grantee who took title “subject to” an existing mortgage quiet title against the foreclosure purchaser by arguing that the mortgagor paid the mortgage during the foreclosure action and arranged for the action and sale to proceed in the mortgagee’s name for the mortgagor’s benefit?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal rejected respondents’ argument that the appeal was untimely; a motion for new trial was available even though the case was tried on stipulated facts, and the notice of appeal filed after denial of that motion was timely.
- On the merits, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants, concluding Vincent could not quiet title and had no interest superior to the foreclosure purchaser’s title obtained through the decree and sheriff’s sale.

## Legal Principles

- A case submitted on stipulated facts may still support a motion for new trial; the motion is not void merely because there is no factual dispute, since the moving party may challenge the trial court’s legal conclusions drawn from the stipulated record.
- When a conveyance is made “subject to” a mortgage, the grantee takes the property burdened by the lien and generally acquires only the equity of redemption as against the mortgagee and those claiming through the foreclosure.
- A grantee who was made a party to the foreclosure action and failed to redeem cannot use a later quiet title suit to defeat the title acquired at a foreclosure sale conducted under a valid decree.
- Payment of the mortgage debt by the original mortgagor during a pending foreclosure does not necessarily operate to free the property from the lien for the benefit of a later grantee who took subject to the mortgage; equity may treat the payer (or the payer’s nominee) as entitled to the mortgagee’s position against the grantee, so long as the grantee’s situation is not made worse than what was accepted when taking title subject to the lien.
- Side arrangements between the mortgagor and mortgagee to continue foreclosure in the mortgagee’s name for the mortgagor’s benefit do not, by themselves, give a “subject to” grantee a basis to void the foreclosure where the grantee was joined in the foreclosure and had the chance to protect the equity by payment or redemption.

## Conclusion

The California Court of Appeal held that Vincent’s appeal was timely because a motion for new trial could properly be made on a stipulated record, but it affirmed the adverse quiet title judgment because Vincent took the property subject to the mortgage, was bound by the foreclosure decree and sale, and could not invalidate the foreclosure on the theory that the mortgagor’s payment and related arrangement should have extinguished the lien in her favor.


Vincent v. Garland, 14 Cal. App. 2d 725, 58 P.2d 1320 (1936)