Phair v. Walker
| Decision Date | 03 February 1977 |
| Citation | 277 Or. 141,559 P.2d 882 |
| Parties | Ronald E. PHAIR and Lorrayne Phair, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Chandler J. WALKER and Bobbie Lou Walker, husband and wife, Appellants, Hal F. Coe and Betty Coe, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Blair M. Henderson, Klamath Falls, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Richard C. Beesley, Klamath Falls, argued the cause and filed a brief for Ronald E. Phair and Lorrayne Phair.
William P. Brandsness, Klamath Falls, filed a brief for Betty Coe.
Before HOLMAN, P.J., HOWELL and LENT, JJ., and MENGLER, J. Pro Tem.
This is an appeal from a decree that the plaintiffs are the owners of certain property free of any estate or interest therein by the defendants. Plaintiffs purchased Lots 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, and a portion of Lot 7 from Blanche H. Balsiger under a land sale contract, which, together with a warranty deed, was delivered to First Federal Savings & Loan Association as escrow agent.
The plaintiffs, with Balsiger's written consent, assigned their entire interest in the Balsiger contract to the defendants Coe. This assignment and a deed were recorded on February 12, 1965 and were delivered to the escrow agent. Contemporaneously the plaintiffs, by a second written contract, assigned only portions of their interest in Lots 20, 21, 22, 25, and all of their interest in Lots 26 and 29 to the defendants Coe, and the plaintiffs Phair reserved the interest in the unassigned portions of Lots 20, 21, 22, and 25, and all of the portion of Lot 7. This second assignment and deed were not recorded, but were also delivered to the escrow agent.
The Balsiger contract is not in evidence. The second unrecorded assignment recited that Mrs. Balsiger would not consent to a partial assignment, but required that the entire interest in the Balsiger contract be assigned to the defendants Coe with their assuming payment on the whole contract. This assignment further recited that Mrs. Balsiger had agreed to release, upon prepayment, lot-size tracts from the property retained by the plaintiffs Phair. Mrs. Balsiger was not a witness. The plaintiff Ronald E. Phair testified as follows:
'Q And the reason that you had two different instruments was because Mrs. Balsiger would not consent to your selling that property in parcels; isn't that correct?
'A She wanted the whole parcel intact.
'Q That's right, and she wouldn't consent to your assignment unless you kept it intact, isn't that correct?
'A Well, that is, I am sure, the insinuation here, but we did have a side contract with her that would--or I think a written consent that we could do otherwise, but she wanted--she requested that this be recorded, the original.'
The defendants Coe were subsequently in the process of being divorced, and the defendant Hal F. Coe, by bargain and sale deed, conveyed what was the subject of the unrecorded second assignment and other unrelated property to the defendant Betty M. Coe. This deed was recorded on June 1, 1970.
On April 22, 1971 defendant Betty M. Coe, with Balsiger's consent, assigned all of her interest in the recorded Phair-Coe contract to the defendants Walker.
The defendants Walker on appeal allege that the trial court erred in finding that they were not bona fide purchasers. No issue was raised as to whether the defendants Walker purchased in good faith and for valuable consideration. The question before the court is whether the defendants Walker had actual, or constructive, notice of the intervening interest of the plaintiffs Phair.
The defendants Walker received a preliminary title report showing title in fee simple in Blanche H. Balsiger. Among the exceptions were the following: (1) the recorded Balsiger contract; (2) the recorded vendee's interest of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloomfield v. Weakland
...use of the easement and its rejection of defendant's bona fide purchaser defense. We review those rulings de novo. Phair v. Walker, Coe, 277 Or. 141, 145, 559 P.2d 882 (1977); D'Abbracci v. Shaw-Bastian, 201 Or.App. 108, 117, 117 P.3d 1032 (2005) (claim for injunctive relief for interferenc......
-
Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington
...the property's chain of title and is “bound by the recitals in the conveyances necessary to his chain of title.” Phair v. Walker, Coe, 277 Or. 141, 144, 559 P.2d 882 (1977); see also Jennings v. Lentz, 50 Or. 483, 490, 93 P. 327 (1908) (purchaser must use reasonable diligence in conducting ......
-
Phair v. Walker
...notice of the reserved interest of the present plaintiffs was litigated and determined in favor of plaintiffs in Phair v. Walker, 277 Or. 141, 146, 559 P.2d 882 (1977).2 That sum was not paid. Betty Coe then obtained a judgment lien against the property which remains outstanding. Other judg......