First Nat. Bank of Minot v. Bloom, 9407
Decision Date | 15 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 9407,9407 |
Citation | 264 N.W.2d 208 |
Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN MINOT, as Administrator of the Estate of Gust Bloom, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edgar BLOOM, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ella Van Berkom, Minot, for defendant and appellant.
Pringle & Herigstad, Minot, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Herbert L. Meschke, Minot.
This is an appeal by Edgar Bloom (hereinafter Edgar), defendant and appellant, from the judgment of the Mountrail County District Court quieting title to 360 acres of land in Mountrail County in the First National Bank in Minot (hereinafter Bank), as administrator of the estate of Gust Bloom. The court held that Edgar's claim to the land was null and void.
The dispute in this case involves the effect of a warranty deed dated October 20, 1958, signed and acknowledged by the decedent, Gust Bloom, naming Edgar (one of his nephews) as the grantee of the 360 acres. This deed was found on or about January 27, 1975, when Gust's safety deposit box in a bank was entered by order of the county court. The deed was found in a sealed envelope on which was typed: "To be delivered to Edgar Bloom upon my death." Edgar recorded this deed on January 28, 1975.
Gust died on January 15, 1975, without a will. The Bank was appointed administrator of the estate on March 3, 1975, and commenced this quiet title action against Edgar in the district court on November 29, 1976. The Bank contends that there was no actual or constructive delivery of the deed to Edgar and that therefore the deed has no effect.
Edgar on the other hand contends that in considering all the circumstances of this case there was constructive delivery of the deed with Gust reserving a life estate in the land. He contends that the intent of Gust that Edgar own the land is shown by the evidence in this case.
Gust purchased the land in question in the spring of 1958. That fall, he moved in to live with Edgar and his wife in their home. He continued to live with them until September 1, 1973, when he moved into a nursing home. Gust paid Edgar for his room and board only during the last nine months of his stay with them.
From 1959 until 1974 Edgar farmed the land with the crop being split on a 50-50 basis with Gust. Gust paid the taxes on the land and helped farm the land for the first few years. Under their farming arrangement Gust was to furnish the seed and pay half of the combining expenses. Instead, in return for Gust's labor during the first few years, Edgar furnished the seed and paid for all the combining.
To show Gust intended to give the land to him, Edgar relies on certain statements made by Gust. Edgar testified to several conversations he had with Gust concerning the ownership of the land. 1 The first conversation he testified to took place in 1963 just before Gust flew to Sweden. A pertinent part follows: "And so he said, 'Sell the grain, and you keep the money' he said, 'because if something should happen to me, why the land is yours.' "
The second conversation relating to the ownership of the land occurred in 1972 according to Edgar. Edgar had just had three surgeries and had doubts about whether he could continue farming. Edgar testified that the following conversation occurred at this time.
Edgar also testified that a couple times after that he had told Gust that he did not know if he could continue to farm. In response to that, Edgar testified that Gust said:
"(A)fter I am gone, the land will be yours, . . . So try and continue."
Finally, Edgar testified that he had been at the bank box with Gust in July of 1974 and in August of 1974. Edgar testified that at that time in August he had the following conversation with Gust:
From this evidence, Edgar, in his brief, contends that "it was the intention of Gust Bloom that Edgar Bloom own the land." We assume Edgar meant that Gust intended that Edgar own the land during Gust's lifetime.
In Frederick v. Frederick, 178 N.W.2d 834 (N.D.1970), we said:
(Emphasis added.) 178 N.W.2d at 837.
Thus the critical issue in this case is whether or not there was actual or constructive delivery of the deed. The district court found that there was no actual or constructive delivery of the deed. The pertinent findings read:
Whether or not there was actual or constructive delivery of a deed is a question of fact. See Stark County v. Koch, 107 N.W.2d 701, 705 (N.D.1961), and Shuck v. Shuck, 77 N.D. 628, 635, 44 N.W.2d 767, 772 (1950). Thus the findings of fact of the district court that there was no actual or constructive delivery of the deed will be upheld by this court unless we find that these findings are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P.
This case is very similar to Frederick v. Frederick, supra. In Frederick, the defendants asserted that there had been constructive delivery of the deeds in question. The trial court found that there was constructive delivery and on appeal we overturned that finding. A significant part of that opinion reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State Farm Fire v. Prinz
-
Rice v. Neether
...there was actual or constructive delivery of a deed is a question of fact." Jorgensen , 466 N.W.2d at 122 (citing First Nat'l Bank v. Bloom , 264 N.W.2d 208, 210 (N.D. 1978) ). Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a). " ‘A finding of fact is clea......
-
CUNA Mortg. v. Aafedt
...834, 837 (N.D.1970); Sec. 47-09-06, N.D.C.C. Absent a delivery of the deed, the deed is of no effect. First Nat'l Bank in Minot v. Bloom, 264 N.W.2d 208, 210 (N.D.1978) [quoting Stark County v. Koch, 107 N.W.2d 701, 705 (N.D.1961) ]. Because "an estate cannot be thrust upon a person against......
-
Estate of O'Brien v. Robinson
... ... First, she attacked the findings and conclusions of no ... Succession 352 (1985); accord, First Nat'l Bank v. Bloom, 264 N.W.2d 208 (N.D.1978) ... ...
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.4 • SPECIFIC NONPROBATE TRANSFERS
...In re Estate of O'Brien, 749 P.2d 154 (Wash. 1988) (unrecorded deed effectively transferred title on death); First Nat'l Bank v. Bloom, 264 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1978) (unrecorded deed did not effectively transfer title on death). It would not be effective for a beneficiary deed, as C.R.S. § 15-......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.4 • SPECIFIC NONPROBATE TRANSFERS
...In re Estate of O'Brien, 749 P.2d 154 (Wash. 1988) (unrecorded deed effectively transferred title on death); First Nat'l Bank v. Bloom, 264 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1978) (unrecorded deed did not effectively transfer title on death). It would not be effective for a beneficiary deed, as C.R.S. § 15-......
-
Testamentary Fragmentation and the Diminishing Role of the Will: an Argument for Revival
...other written instrument effective as a contract, gift, conveyance or trust" to "or other written instrument of a similar nature"). 58. 264 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1978). 59. First Nat'l Bank in Minot v. Bloom, 264 N.W.2d 208, 212 (N.D. 1978) (emphasis added). 60. First Nat'l Bank, 264 N.W.2d at 2......