988 F.2d 117 (9th Cir. 1993), 92-36590, Ackerson v. Ackerson
|Citation:||988 F.2d 117|
|Party Name:||Truman ACKERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward ACKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 12, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted March 2, 1993.
Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Montana, No. CV-85-00288-GF; Paul Hatfield, District Judge, Presiding.
Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, CANBY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Factual and Procedural History.
This long-time family feud concerns the Ackerson family, and for the sake of simplicity the first names of members of that family will be used throughout this memorandum. Truman and Edward are brothers and their mother was Ruth. George is Edward's son. Ruth originally owned a parcel of real property known as Thelen Place located in Choteau County, Montana. Ruth, Truman, and Edward entered into a settlement agreement in 1983 regarding the property, with George having Ruth's power of attorney. Truman received the surface rights to Thelen Place subject to Edward's right of first refusal if Truman tried to sell the property.
At some point Edward came into possession of three blank quitclaim deeds executed by Truman circa 1940. Edward and George visited a local attorney, Allin Cheetham, who was asked to complete the deeds by filling in "Thelen Place" in the description and "George" as the grantee. One of the three deeds was filed by the county, even though it had not been acknowledged. At that time, Truman had been trying to sell his interest in the property. After the filing of the quitclaim deed, the deal fell through on account of the prospective purchaser's concern about the deed's clouding of the title.
Truman filed this suit in 1985 against Edward, George, Cheetham, and the county. George was never served with process. After the granting of pretrial motions for summary judgment and a settlement during trial, the case went to the jury solely on Truman's claims of slander of title and tortious interference of contract against Edward. The jury found for Edward on both claims. Truman appealed and this court affirmed as to all issues save one. Ackerson v. Ackerson, 895 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.1990) (unpublished disposition). We reversed the judgment in favor of Edward on the slander of title claim, ruling that the district court should have granted Truman's motion for a JNOV, 1 and we...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP