Case Information
_________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
L EE J ACKSON ; A CTION I NVESTMENT S ERVICES LLC; AND I NTERNATIONAL P ETROLEUM LLC, and Appellees, v.
W ILLIAM C. H ALLS , Defendant Appellant. Memorandum Decision No.
Filed October
Second District Court, Farmington Department Honorable Thomas L. Kay No.
William C. Halls, Appellant Pro Se
James H. Deans, Attorney Appellees
J UDGE M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN authored Memorandum
Decision, J UDGES J. F REDERIC V OROS J R and S TEPHEN L. R OTH concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN, Judge:
¶1 William C. appeals court’s denial compel delivery certain upon Lee Jackson; Action Investment Services, LLC; International Petroleum, LLC (collectively, Plaintiffs). reverse remand. This case arises attempts collect obtained prior proceeding (the
Judgment). In August filed complaint seeking renew unpaid court entered default Halls. obtained writ Halls against Halls’ residence, set for March 2011. On January 28, 2011, Halls filed a declaration homestead with county recorder claiming a homestead exemption residence. Ann. 503(2) Supp. (providing for individual’s residence remain exempt or levy). In response Halls’ Plaintiffs applied $40,000 credit Judgment, proceeded with on March 1.
¶3 At Halls requested Plaintiffs tender cash him his homestead exemption. refused based upon position that crediting $40,000 toward Judgment gave Halls that satisfied requirements homestead exemption. Plaintiffs ultimately bidders on Halls’ residence a $425,000 against Judgment. Thereafter, Halls filed compel deliver his homestead exemption rather than a against Judgment. district court denied Halls’ motion, agreeing had homestead appeals. ¶5 Halls challenges court’s interpretation statute. review court’s statutory correctness. Turner Staker Parson Cos. argues because he filed declaration identified his claimed residence $40,000, presumably figure included wife whom owned jointly. Plaintiffs only interest residence, has asserted appeal entitlement own $20,000. v. declaration on his residence prior execution was entitled receive amount his cash from proceeds sale entitled only to excess proceeds above value We agree.
¶6 The Utah Exemptions (the Act) creates homestead “consisting state amount not exceeding $20,000 if claimed personal residence individual.” Ann. § 78B ‐ ‐ 503(2)(a) Supp. further provides, “Property includes may not sold at if there bid exceeds declared exemption.” Id. § 504(5) (2008). Thus, judgment executing “is entitled receive those proceeds do impair [debtor’s] exemption.” Homeside Lending, Inc. Miller App Accordingly, was receive $20,000 proceeds sale on bid before remaining proceeds returned as executing creditor. assert satisfied “credit” “judgment” bid—a against owed rather than cash payment—there no from therefore delivery payment. As general rule, accept but take successful bidder cash. See Am. Jur. 2d Executions & Enforcement Judgments § (2005); C.J.S. (2009). where executing also bidder, many courts held creditor owed, rather than undertaking “useless ceremony handing money then receiving back him.” Title Trust Co. Security Bldgs. Corp. P. (Or. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Holden Cribb v. S.E.2d 638 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002) (“[I]f successful bidder is judgment holder and is solely entitled whatever sums may have been bid for property, it be senseless require bidder pay cash.”). See generally Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank New Plan Realty Trust , A.2d 29 (Md. 2000) (reviewing jurisdictions adopting bid exception). And is “well established” that “if trustee forecloses . . . bid take for judgment.” Chapman Schiller , P.2d (Utah 1938). ¶8 However, do agree with argument that bid at sale with credit there no sale which paid. Allowing executing its winning bid by merely a convenience avoid “useless ceremony” payment by very party entitled receive proceeds sale. See Title Trust Co. P. at “The fact tender . . . irrelevant way alters character transaction as purchased cash.” Petrie General Contracting Co. (Utah (Callister, J., dissenting majority’s conclusion attorney entitled one third contingency fee was entitled one third ownership interest purchased credit judgment). Moreover, full bid amount predicated successful bidder being “ solely whatever sums been property.” Holden S.E.2d (emphasis added).
¶9 Here, sheriff’s notice provided was made cash. C.J.S. (2009) (“Cash within meaning rule generally means current legal tender or money .”). submitted proceeds excess $20,000 superior claims fees associated sale. See Homeside 2001 UT App ¶ While have properly some part of a the Judgment, they required to cash part of the bid that not receive, in this case includes full amount necessary satisfy C.J.S. § (2009); cf. Holden, S.E.2d (“Were it not for requirement of attributable the paid in cash, have accepted [the creditor’s] without requiring deposit because been immediately repaid her in her capacity as creditor.”).
¶10 Plaintiffs also argue require of property owner defined in terms gave value crediting amount exemption. “When interpreting statute, . . . [w]e employ plain language analysis carry out legislative purpose statute as expressed through enacted text.” Richards Brown UT 14, ¶ P.3d (footnote citation omitted). “Where statute’s language unambiguous provides workable result, we need resort interpretive tools, our analysis ends.” Id. However, read statute as whole “give effect every provision statute avoid an will render portions statute inoperative.” Warne Warne 238. ¶11 The relevant provision states, “An individual consisting this state exceeding if claimed personal individual.” Ann. 503(2)(a) Supp. assert legislature’s use term “value” definition indicates anything value used upon. provision Act speaks scope individual’s exemption does address how exemption satisfied. Rather, the Act clearly contemplates the exemption will satisfied from the proceeds of the by protecting these very proceeds from further execution. id. 503(5)(b) (“The proceeds sale, of the exemption existing the time is exempt levy, execution, or process for one year after receipt proceeds by person to exemption.”). Plaintiffs’ reading statute would render the protections afforded by provision meaningless here, a credit a owed one creditor provides nothing another execute levy upon. ¶12 Moreover, interpretation directly contravenes purpose homestead “protect citizens their families miseries destitution.” P.I.E. Emps. Fed. Credit Union Bass (Utah Allowing satisfy exemption credit toward a demonstrably unable pay would provide him such protection. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ effect forces exchange exemption for Judgment. This result render homestead exemption nullity legislature have intended result. Accordingly, hold not permit satisfy homestead exemption by giving debtor “value” form debtor.
¶13 Halls sale. portion comprising cash. by giving form Judgment. reverse order court remand court with instructions grant Plaintiffs.