Meagher v. Dean
| Decision Date | 15 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 6102 |
| Citation | 91 P.2d 454,97 Utah 173 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | MEAGHER v. DEAN et al |
Rehearing denied August 2, 1939.
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Oscar W. McConkie, Judge.
Action by N. J. Meagher against Lucinda E. Dean, William Lyle Eldredge, and others to quiet title to certain real estate wherein the defendant William Lyle Eldredge, prayed by way of an affirmative defense that title to property be quieted in him. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Brigham S. Clegg and James M. Carlson, both of Salt Lake City, for appellants.
Mary Alice Meagher, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
N. J. Meagher seeks to quiet his title to the real estate involved in this case. The defendant, William Lyle Eldredge, a minor, prays that his title to said property be quieted. This prayer is attached to an "affirmative defense" and not to a counter-claim. The defendant Lucinda E. Dean seeks no affirmative relief. Chronologically the facts are these:
In October, 1929, Lucinda Dean owned the property. On the 31st of that month she exchanged properties with a Thomas J. Davis. She gave him a warranty deed to the premises. Davis did not record the deed.
On November 1, 1929, Davis and his wife mortgaged the premises to N. J. Meagher, plaintiff herein. The mortgage, along with the Dean-to-Davis deed, was delivered to Meagher. The latter did not, at that time, record either instrument.
On December 22, 1930, the property was sold to the county for taxes.
About April 12, 1931, one Ben Baxendale and his wife entered into possession of said property under a sale agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Davis. They paid some instalments upon the contract, then defaulted, but remained in possession of the premises. Some of the instalments were forwarded to a bank at Vernal, Utah, of which plaintiff N. J. Meagher was cashier. They were forwarded for the credit of Davis, but three of them were credited to the account of Meagher.
Mrs. Dean thought Davis had defrauded her. From an abstract of the title she learned that he had not recorded her deed to him. As she could not get, from him, any reply to her letters, she conceived the idea of transferring the property to another. This was done, she said, under the belief that if her deed to him were put on record while the property remained in her name, he would get the property; but not if she transferred it.
On December 8, 1933, she executed a warranty deed to her daughter. It was recorded the same day. On November 2, 1934, the daughter reconveyed to the mother by a warranty deed. This deed was recorded the day of its date.
On November 4, 1934, Mrs. Dean paid some instalments upon the then four years' delinquent taxes.
On November 16, 1934, she executed a warranty deed to her grandson, William Lyle Eldredge, a minor, a resident of Colorado, and the other defendant in this case. This deed was recorded the same day. Mrs. Dean testified that she mailed this deed to her grandson upon the condition that his father would pay $ 500 for the property, the payments to be made, if desired, out of the rents from the premises. She contends that $ 288 has been paid upon that purchase price. There is, however, confusion in the record as to how this sum was paid. Mrs. Dean claims to have received rent from the Baxendales and others from the premises, which apparently she desires to have considered as instalments on the purchase price. Mrs. Baxendale on the other hand is very uncertain as to having paid anything to Mrs. Dean. The place rented for $ 8 per month, and there were other tenants in the place following the Baxendales who apparently leased from Mrs. Dean. All in all, the evidence probably justifies the conclusion that Mrs. Dean did collect rent from the place for about three years prior to the date of trial (March 24, 1938) which would equal the sum of $ 288.
On November 23, 1934, plaintiff N. J. Meagher recorded the Davis mortgage and the Dean-to-Davis warranty deed.
About April 5, 1935, the Baxendales left the premises at the insistence of Eldredge and for the reason, as given by Mrs. Baxendale, that they did not know whom to recognize as the owner of the premises, Meagher, Mrs. Dean, or young Eldredge. Conflicting demands had been made upon them.
On January 9, 1936, Mrs. Dean redeemed the property from the balance of delinquent taxes.
On April 19, 1935, Davis and his wife quit-claimed their interest in the premises to Meagher in consideration of the cancellation of the note and mortgage. This deed was recorded July 2, 1937.
The trial opened in the lower court with the parties in the position that they were as of July 2, 1937, Mrs. Dean, however, exercising control over the premises. Young Eldredge, in his answer, claims that he and his predecessor have been in possession of said property and claimed title thereto for more than seven years and have paid the taxes thereon since 1928. The lower court found that the Baxendales were in possession of the property from 1931 to 1935 as tenants of Davis. This would negative seven years' possession by the defendants. We see no reason for disturbing that finding. In fact, as far as Mrs. Dean is concerned, there is little to which she can lay claim under the facts of the case. Her activity, in looking after the property and collecting the rents at a time when she claims the property belonged to her grandson, was such that one is assailed with a grave doubt of the sincerity of her claim that the property really is his. It is interesting to note that the boy's father, who, supposedly, was responsible for the payment of the $ 500 for the property, did not appear and testify at the trial. The lower court found that Mrs. Dean acted fraudulently in executing the deed, but made no finding as to whether or not the deed was delivered to young Eldredge. In his conclusions of law he states that young Eldredge is not a bona fide purchaser for value which would entitle him to an interest in the property.
Let us presume that there was a delivery and acceptance of the deed, without passing upon the question of whether or not the testimony justifies such a finding. Upon such a presumption, the outcome of the case is dependent upon the application of Sec. 78-1-6, R. S. U. 1933. That section reads:
"Every conveyance of real estate, and every instrument of writing setting forth an agreement to convey any real estate or whereby any real estate may be affected, to operate as notice to third persons shall be proved or acknowledged and certified in the manner prescribed by this title and recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which such real estate is situated, but shall be valid and binding between the parties thereto without such proof, acknowledgment, certification or record, and as to all other persons who have had actual notice."
In Toland v. Corey, 6 Utah 392, 24 P. 190, we held that occupancy of the premises was enough to put the parties dealing with the premises upon inquiry. The Baxendales were in occupation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ault v. Holden
...4 Utah 2d 218, 222, 291 P.2d 883, 886 (1955); Williams v. Barney, 119 Utah 61, 84-85, 224 P.2d 1042, 1053 (1950); Meagher v. Dean, 97 Utah 173, 179, 91 P.2d 454, 456 (1939). However, where a party in possession has no rights adverse to the purchaser, the property is conveyed to the purchase......
-
Latses v. Nick Floor, Inc
... ... their eyes open. They were put on inquiry as to the status of ... respondent's occupancy. Meagher v ... Dean, 97 Utah 173, 91 P.2d 454 ... As to ... the improvements, the lower court made the following finding: ... "* ... ...
-
Reynolds v. Jubber (In re C.W. Mining Co.)
...states that the Utah Supreme Court has "held that occupancy of the premises was enough to put the parties upon inquiry," Meagher v. Dean, 91 P.2d 454, 456 (Utah 1939), this decision has since been clarified. While "possession by someone other than the seller engenders a duty to inquire on t......
-
Goeltz v. Continental Bank & Trust Co.
...in 73 A.L.R. 1407.4 For a discussion on what constitutes notice see McGarry v. Thompson, 1948, 114 Utah 442, 201 P.2d 288; Meagher v. Dean, 97 Utah 173, 91 P.2d 454, and O'Reilly v. McLean, 84 Utah 551, 37 P.2d 770, 775, where we quote with approval from Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, at ......
-
CHAPTER 8 THE 1982 MODEL FORM OPERATING AGREEMENT: CHANGES AND CONTINUING CONCERNS
...Vol IV, §17.12; Perry v. Norris, 178 Okl. 7, 62 P.2d 70 (1936); Wilkinson v. Stone, 82 Okl. 296, 200 P.196 (1921); Meagher v. Dean, 97 Utah 173, 91 P.2d 454 (1939). [69] American Law of Property, Vol IV, §17.13; Rose v. Roberts, 195 Okl. 687; 161 P.2d 851 (1945); Marburger v. Iselt, 521 S.W......