Caudill v. Caudill

• Decision Date: 30 April 1935
• Docket Number: No. 4029.,4029.
• Citation: 44 P.2d 724,39 N.M. 248
• Parties: CAUDILLv.CAUDILL et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

39 N.M. 248

44 P.2d 724

CAUDILL

v.CAUDILL et al.

No. 4029.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

April 30, 1935.

Appeal from District Court, Lea County; McGhee, Judge.

Action by E. M. Caudill, Jr., against E. M. Caudill, Sr., and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

In minor's suit to vacate judgment in quiet title action brought by father against minor, presumption existed that court granting judgment had rights of minor in mind.

J. S. Vaught, of Albuquerque, for appellant.

G. L. Reese, Jr., of Carlsbad, T. A. Whelan, of Lovington, and G. L. Reese, Sr., of Roswell, for appellees.

BICKLEY, Justice.

Evylin A. Stagner, on May 8, 1911, made a homestead entry of the land involved in this case by filing her claim therefor in the United States Land Office. On June 13, 1911, she became the wife of E. M. Caudill, Sr., and she and her husband moved upon the land and occupied it as their home until the death of Mrs. Caudill March 21, 1915. With the aid of her husband, Mrs. Caudill established her claim and made final proof so that a patent was issued to her on January 19, 1915, as “Evylin A. Caudill, formerly Evylin A. Stagner.”

Mrs. Caudill afterwards died intestate. The sole issue of the marriage was E. M. Caudill, Jr., the appellant, who was born July 15, 1913.

The senior Caudill filed his complaint in the district court in the usual quiet title form, entitled E. M. Caudill v. E. M. Caudill, Jr., No. 2608. Plaintiff alleged ownership of the land in fee simple; that the defendant E. M. Caudill, Jr., made some claim to the lands adverse to plaintiff's estate; that defendant was a minor, followed by the usual quiet title prayer. Summons and a copy of the complaint were duly served upon the defendant who was then about four years of age, and thereafter the court made an order reciting, “It appearing to the court that the defendant is a minor and that Robert C. Dow, Esq., a lawyer of Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a suitable person to act as guardian ad litem to represent the interests of said minor,” and the said Dow was appointed such guardian. Mr. Dow filed an answer as attorney and guardian ad litem for the infant defendant, putting the cause at issue. The case came on for hearing, and upon the evidence adduced the court found and concluded that the lands were “clearly and distinctly the community property” of the plaintiff and his deceased wife, and that under the laws of this state, upon the death of the wife, said lands belonged to the husband (plaintiff), and that he was the owner thereof, and by decree dated May 29, 1917, established the title thereof in the plaintiff against the adverse claim of the defendant.

About fourteen years later the appellant, still a minor, commenced suit by Georgia Stagner Smith, his maternal aunt, as his next friend, making E. M. Caudill, Sr., O. H. Green, Boyd Dudley, and others defendants.

The complaint characterized the first cause of action of plaintiff as being “by way of bill of review” to have declared null and void and to cancel and vacate the final decree aforesaid, and to have the defendant Boyd Dudley decreed to be a constructive trustee of the legal title of the land involved for the benefit of the plaintiff. The second cause of action was an ordinary suit to quiet title in the plaintiff to an undivided three-fourths interest in the lands. The first cause of action is based upon the allegations that the defendant Caudill, Sr., being the father of plaintiff at the time of the decree attacked, stood in the relation of natural guardian to his minor son, Caudill, Jr., and that the suit to quiet title in the father was fraudulent, and that said Caudill, Sr., had procured a false return of service of said suit to be made upon his infant son, and that he had “procured” the appointment of the infant defendant's guardian ad litem, and that said guardian ad litem, “affecting” to act for the infant defendant, was “procured and engaged so to do by the said E. M. Caudill, Sr.,” and that said guardian ad litem “filed a pretended answer in said cause.” There were other allegations from which we gather that it is charged that the senior Caudill acted collusively with the guardian ad litem to practice a fraud upon the court, and that the said Caudill, Sr., practiced a fraud upon the guardian ad litem by withholding and suppressing from the guardian ad litem and the court “facts affecting, pertinent to and controlling the status and condition of the legal title to the said land, and particularly that plaintiff's mother filed and made said homestead entry on said land on the 8th day of May, 1911, which was prior to the time of her marriage to the said E. M. Caudill, Sr., and that said lands were her separate estate, and that by reason of such concealment the plaintiff herein was deprived of a fair hearing and trial of the issues of law and fact,”

It is further alleged in said cause of action that a decree was entered in said cause quieting plaintiff's title, and that thereafter said lands were conveyed to one O. H. Green and by him conveyed to the defendant herein, Boyd Dudley, and that each of the said grantees above mentioned took title to said premises with actual and constructive notice of the infirmity of the title thereto in E. M. Caudill, Sr.

The allegations of the complaint were put in issue and the defendant Boyd Dudley filed a separate answer in which he admitted the facts alleged regarding entry of the lands in controversy by the plaintiff's mother, and the institution and prosecution of the cause No. 2608, and denied all allegations of fraud. By way of new matter he alleged that he purchased said lands from the defendant O. H. Green relying upon the decree and proceedings in cause No. 2608 in good faith and for a valuable consideration.

The trial court made findings of fact, among which were the following:

“IV. That on the 29th day of May, 1917, the defendant E. M. Caudill, Sr., filed a suit in the District Court of Eddy County, now Lea County, against his minor son, the plaintiff herein, E. M. Caudill, for the purpose of quieting his title to the lands above described, the Complaint therein being in statutory form; that in said cause a summons was duly issued and served upon said minor, E. M. Caudill, and pursuant to law, a guardian ad litem was therein appointed in the person of Robert C. Dow, to represent said minor, and issue having been joined upon the complaint in said cause, said district court, on the 29th day of May, 1917, proceeded to hear said cause upon the merits, and after a full and complete disclosure of all of the pertinent facts relative to the title to said lands, found and adjudged that the property in question was the community property of E. M. Caudill, Sr., and his deceased wife, Evelyn Ada Caudill, and that upon her death said lands passed to the plaintiff, E. M. Caudill, Sr., without administration, and the title of the said E. M. Caudill, Sr., was ordered quieted and set at rest as against any claims of the minor, E. M. Caudill; that the proceedings in said cause were regular upon their face and that there was no fraud or bad faith on the part of the plaintiff therein, E. M. Caudill Sr., or on the part of the guardian ad litem, R. C. Dow, or on the part of any one, and that any error in the judgment of the court was solely an error of law; and that no appeal was taken from said final decree to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

“V. That after the rendition and entry of the decree in said cause, E. M. Caudill, Sr., for a valuable consideration conveyed the lands in controversy by warranty deed, to the defendant, O. H. Greene, and thereafter, and on the 2nd day of November, 1926, the said O. H. Greene conveyed said property by warranty deed to the defendant, Boyd Dudley; that the said Boyd Dudley paid value for said lands, relying upon the final decree and proceedings in the said suit to quiet title, and without any notice or knowledge of any infirmity therein.

“VI. The Court further finds that the plaintiff has wholly failed to sustain the allegations of his complaint as to the alleged fraud in said suit to quiet title, and that all of the material allegations of the defendant, Dudley's Answer and cross complaint, have been established by the evidence.”

And the court concluded as follows: “From the foregoing findings the Court concludes that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover herein, and that the title of the defendant, Boyd Dudley, to said lands should be quieted and set...