Prudente v. Nechanicky
| Decision Date | 28 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 8997,8997 |
| Citation | 367 P.2d 568,84 Idaho 42 |
| Parties | James A. PRUDENTE and Charlotte Prudente, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Theodore NECHANICKY, also known as Ted Nechanicky, and Clara Nechanicky, his wife, Defendants-Appellants, J. P. Nelson and Jane Doe Nelson, his wife, whose true Christian name is not known, and any unknown heirs, devisees, legatees, successors or assigns of said J. P. Nelson and Jane Doe Nelson; Loren E. Forsberg and Jane Doe Forsberg, his wife, whose true Christian name is not known, and any unknown persons claiming or to claim as heirs, devisees, legatees, successors or assigns of said persons; Theodore Nechanicky, also known as Ted Nechanicky, and Clara Nechanicky, his wife, and all of the unknown heirs, assigns, and devisees of each and all of the above-named individuals, and all persons claiming or to claim under said persons, and all persons interested or claiming any right, title, interest, lien or estate in and to the following described real property, situate in Benewah County, Idaho: Lots Twenty (20), Twenty-one (21), Twenty-two (22), Twenty-three (23), Twenty-four (24) and Twenty-five (25), Central Addition to the City of St. Maries. Benewah County, Idaho, or claiming any equity or interest or title in any portion of said property or buildings situate thereon, Other Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wm. D. Keeton, Boise, for appellants.
Richard L. McFadden, St. Maries, for respondents.
The record variously designates a certain structure as a boathouse, floathouse or houseboat. Except where otherwise indicated we shall refer to it as a houseboat.
Respondents brought this action to quiet title to Lots 20 to 25, inclusive, in Central Addition to the City of St. Maries, alleging that they hold title thereto by virtue of a Benewah County tax deed executed and delivered April 20, 1959, but that appellants claim an interest in a certain 'boathouse' or 'floathouse' purchased by respondents, assessed or taxed as real property, situate on and appurtenant to Lot 20.
Appellants by their answer disclaimed any interest in the described lots, but claim the houseboat, alleging that it was located partly on Lot 20 and partly on the adjacent Lot 19; they denied that the structure is appurtenant to the real property, alleging that it is personal property, and that respondents secured no title thereto by their tax deed.
Appellants then affirmatively alleged that in 1958 they purchased the houseboat, in a dilapidated condition, tipped over on Lot 19, and that the owner of that lot permitted placement of the structure thereon; that they repaired and improved it to a value in excess of $1200; also that it is placed on logs and so constructed that it floats on water. Appellants offered to do equity by payment of reasonable rental for any time the structure may have occupied a portion of Lot 20.
Appellants, by supplemental answer, alleged that during the spring of 1960, due to the high waters of the adjacent St. Joe River, the houseboat floated off and away from, and no longer was located on any part of respondents' land.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of respondents and entered judgment and decree quieting title in them to the described lots and to the houseboat. Thereafter, appellants appealed from the judgment and decree and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The record shows that March 14, 1941, Oscar Oquist, then owner, quitclaimed the described Lots 20 to 25, inclusive, 'together with the boathouse' situate thereon to Isaie Lahaye who, May 5, 1941, quitclaimed said described properties to Marguerite Nelson; that Marguerite Nelson and Sam Nelson, September 10, 1952, quitclaimed the same to Loren E. Forsberg. Next, by County Treasurer's tax deed, dated January 16, 1957, for the consideration of $9.58 delinquent taxes, Benewah County took title to the described lots 'and Houseboat.' Benewah County, April 20, 1959, by tax deed conveyed to respondents the described lots for a total consideration of $150, but made no mention in such deed of a float-house, boathouse, or houseboat; nor did the county theretofore advertise that any such structure was to be sold by the county at the tax sale.
The testimony shows that sometime after 1952 Mr. and Mrs. Forsberg transferred the land and the houseboat to Carl M. Buell, who was performing legal work for Forsberg. This transaction also was by quitclaim deed which Mr. Buell lost or misplaced. He remembered that previously he had prepared quitclaim deeds for the land but always had set out the houseboat separately, in addition to the legal description of the lots of land.
In 1958, Mr. Buell sold the houseboat to Clara Nechanicky, one of the appellants. This transaction is evidenced by Mrs. Nechanicky's bank check to Buell, dated January 14, 1958, for $20; which cleared the bank the next day; on the face of the check is written 'Pay't in full boathouse.'
Buell didn't think the houseboat was worth any more than $20 because of its deplorable condition. One witness, acquainted with the houseboat at that time, stated it was worthless except for the logs upon which it floated. Appellants after acquiring the houseboat rebuilt it and thereby enhanced its value to $1400.
The trial court found that in January 1958 the houseboat was tipped over and laying on its side on the described Lots 17, 18 or 19, adjacent to Lot 20, it having been removed from Lot 20 by the waters of St. Joe River. That appellants purchased the houseboat from Carl M. Buell, paying $20 therefor although Buell did not have good title thereto; that appellants righted the houseboat, substantially repaired and improved it, and moored it at a place on, designated by and with the permission of the owner of Lot 19. That such structure is placed on logs, and floats during times of sufficient depths of the waters of St. Joe River; that appellants had no knowledge that respondents owned the lots which they claim, but assumed that one Jones owned the land, whereas Benewah County owned it, or a part on which the houseboat was placed.
Appellants assign error of the trial court in failing to decree them to be the owners of the houseboat; in finding that the houseboat was assessed as part of the realty; that its title passed to Benewah County in 1957 by tax deed; that the county conveyed it to respondents by county deed April 20, 1959, and that appellants were not the owners.
Appellants claim the houseboat as personal property. Respondents claim it as part of the real property conveyed to them in 1959 by the county's deed.
Appellants' arguments basically classified are:
First: That the county could tax the houseboat only as personal property and thus could execute on it only as personal property; that therefore it could not be included with the land in the tax sale.
Second: That even though the county might tax the houseboat as real property, nevertheless in fact it is personal property not affixed to the land, and therefore its title did not pass with the land or at least not by virtue of the tax deed.
I.C. § 49-218 sets out the schedule of annual fees to be paid a county assessor for licensing motor and sailboats. I.C. § 49-219 provides, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ryerson
...(i.e., “useful adjunct”) and arguable adaptation is not alone sufficient to make it a fixture.Also instructive is Prudente v. Nechanicky, 84 Idaho 42, 367 P.2d 568 (1961). In that case, there was a structure variously identified as a boathouse, float house or houseboat. Once dilapidated, it......
-
In re Ryerson
...( i.e., “useful adjunct”) and arguable adaptation is not alone sufficient to make it a fixture. Also instructive is Prudente v. Nechanicky, 84 Idaho 42, 367 P.2d 568 (1961). In that case, there was a structure variously identified as a boathouse, float house or houseboat. Once dilapidated, ......
-
Spencer v. Jameson
...[and] (3) Intention of the party so annexing to make the article a permanent accession to the realty." Prudente v. Nechanicky, 84 Idaho 42, 47, 367 P.2d 568, 570-71 (1961). The evidence demonstrates that the 1981 Skyline mobile home was affixed to the land at the time of sale and, therefore......