Crompton v. Bruce
Decision Date | 23 September 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 83-61,83-61 |
Citation | 669 P.2d 930 |
Parties | Kelly Jay CROMPTON and Clarence Don Crompton, Appellants (Defendants), Warren M. Adamson and Louise Adamson, (Defendants), v. Robert L. BRUCE and Karol Bruce, Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Timothy O. Beppler of Vehar, Lehman, Beppler & Jacobson, P.C., Evanston, for appellees.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
The trial court granted the plaintiffs relief: reformation of the disputed quitclaim deed and quiet title to the mineral estate. We will affirm.
The real estate transactions of concern here involve three families: Robert and Karol Bruce, husband and wife; Warren and Louise Adamson, husband and wife; and Clarence and Kelly Crompton, father and son. The Bruces, plaintiffs below and appellees here, are the sellers of the Wyoming property and buyers of the Idaho property. Appellants Adamsons are the Idaho sellers. Appellants Cromptons are the Wyoming buyers.
In the course of their search for suitable property to farm, the Bruces learned of the ranch the Adamsons had for sale in Idaho. They saw the property and desired to purchase it, hoping to sell their Wyoming property to raise funds. They entered into a contract for the sale of their Wyoming land to the Cromptons. The contract, as well as the associated warranty deed placed in escrow, reserved all oil, gas and minerals to the Bruces. In turn, as part consideration for the Idaho property, the Bruces assigned the installment land-sale contract to the Adamsons. The Bruces also executed a quitclaim deed which was placed in escrow in order to give the Adamsons security against the Cromptons' default. This deed did not reserve the minerals.
After the Adamsons became unhappy with the Bruces, Mrs. Adamson directed the bank holding the quitclaim deed executed by the Bruces to record the deed. Because the bank later thought the deed was missing, the Bruces were requested to execute and did execute an identical quitclaim deed. This was subsequently recorded.
In the meantime, the Adamsons were eager to have the Cromptons accelerate payment on the installment contract which the Bruces had assigned to the Adamsons. There had been a drought and the Adamsons' potato crop had failed. The Cromptons agreed to do this and sought financing from a bank. That bank promised to lend the necessary funds to the Cromptons, and, as part of the bank's internal procedures, searched title on the Wyoming property. The title examiner discovered the recorded quitclaim deed from the Bruces to the Adamsons and informed the Cromptons, who became aware for the first time that the mineral rights were not reserved in the Bruce-Adamson deed. Subsequently, they asked the Adamsons to execute another quitclaim deed to them, which would contain the same provisions and description as the Bruce-Adamson quitclaim deed. The Adamsons complied, and the Cromptons recorded the Adamson-Crompton quitclaim deed. Thus, the Cromptons became the record owners of the mineral rights. The Cromptons did not discuss the status of the mineral rights with the Adamsons, nor did they pay to the Adamsons any more than was the Adamson's due under the original Crompton-Bruce contract which had been assigned to the Adamsons.
The Bruces became aware of this state of affairs for the first time when they were negotiating oil and gas leases after the Adamson-Crompton transaction was completed. Upon this discovery, the Bruces asked the Adamsons and the Cromptons to deed the minerals back to them. Both refused.
The instant suit followed. The Bruces sought reformation of the quitclaim deeds to conform to the parties' original understanding and quiet title to the minerals. The trial court found for the plaintiffs Bruces.
The trial court found all the elements necessary for reformation and appellants Cromptons complain that there was not sufficient evidence to support its findings. Appellants also claim that their two defenses to reformation were improperly decided. They contend:
The standards for appellate review are well established. As early as 1977, we said:
Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Association v. Cross, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1280, 1283 (1977).
Also see Foster Lumber Company, Inc. v. Hume, Wyo., 645 P.2d 1176 (1982); Robinson v. True Drilling Company, Wyo., 641 P.2d 195 (1982); Distad v. Cubin, Wyo., 633 P.2d 167 (1981); Western National Bank of Lovell v. Moncur, Wyo., 624 P.2d 765 (1981).
Appellants claim that some of their testimony was virtually uncontradicted and should be credited as unimpeached evidence.
Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Association v. Cross, supra, 569 P.2d at 1284-1285.
The testimony of the Adamsons cannot be said to be uncontradicted and unimpeached because the Adamsons, in fact, impeached themselves. Questions of credibility are for the trial judge and it is the trial court's duty to weigh the evidence. His determination will not be upset by this court so long as it is rationally supported.
Thomasi v. Koch, Wyo., 660 P.2d 806, 811 (1983).
The testimony of the Bruces, and witnesses Beeks and Wills, and the documents in the record, support the trial court's determination
that the Adamsons' story was not credible. In the case at bar, appellants Adamsons denied the facts asserted by appelle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re, s. 85-203
...Credibility is for the trier of fact. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division v. Colvin, Wyo., 681 P.2d 269 (1984); Crompton v. Bruce, Wyo., 669 P.2d 930 (1983); Matter of Altman's Estate, Wyo., 650 P.2d 277 (1982). The master praised Mesghinna's thorough work and found him not only cr......
-
In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River
...Credibility is for the trier of fact. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division v. Colvin, Wyo., 681 P.2d 269 (1984); Crompton v. Bruce, Wyo., 669 P.2d 930 (1983); Matter of Altman's Estate, Wyo., 650 P.2d 277 (1982). The master praised Mesghinna's thorough work and found him not only cr......
-
Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...Toland v. Key Bank of Wyoming , 847 P.2d 549, 554 (Wyo.1993) ; Gasaway v. Reiter , 736 P.2d 749, 751 (Wyo.1987) ; Crompton v. Bruce , 669 P.2d 930, 934 (Wyo.1983).Id . Clear and convincing evidence is "proof which would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly pro......
-
Mcmurry Const. v. Community First Ins.
...supra ¶¶ 14, 21-28, we conclude that they should not and do not bar the equitable remedy of contract reformation. See Crompton v. Bruce, 669 P.2d 930, 934-35 (Wyo.1983) (failure to read contract before signing it is not such negligence as to defeat [¶ 33] McMurry Construction believes that ......