Reed v. Owen, 4298
| Citation | 523 P.2d 869 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 4298,4298 |
| Parties | Earl W. REED et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Charles C. OWEN and Anna L. Owen, Appellees (Defendants below). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Thomas A. Burley, Douglas, for appellants.
Houston G. Williams of Wehrli & Williams, Casper, for appellees.
Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE, McINTYRE, and McCLINTOCK, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in an action by plaintiffs seeking to declare void a memorandum of agreement, by which the plaintiffs, vendees of certain real estate, received only onefourth instead of one-half of the mineral rights owned by vendors, and to have defendants execute in favor of plaintiffs a mineral deed conveying to them an additional one-fourth interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the original option agreement.
The noncontroverted facts were that plaintiffs were granted by defendants an option to purchase various lands 'including one-half of the minerals owned by Sellers.' Shortly before consummation of the sale, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement which stated, inter alia:
'* * * the present record shows the mineral rights on the Blanche W. Owen lands as being entirely owned by the Grantors herein, which is in fact in error; and it is the intent of the parties and the intent of the Grantors to convey to the Grantees only one-half of one-half or one-fourth of any mineral rights under the Blanche W. Owen lands.
'That for the purpose of expediting the loan closing, the Grantors have executed their Warranty Deeds to the Grantees covering the surface interest only on the ranch lands involved; and the Grantors have further executed mineral deed as of this date in blank to be held by J. Patrick Hand, attorney for the Grantors, until such time as the proper description and proper percentage of mineral rights can be inserted therein to carry out the conveyance and intent of these parties as to minerals.' 1
Two warranty deeds for the property in the option, executed July 20, 1964, excepted the mineral rights; but on August 19, 1964, the vendors executed a mineral deed granting to plaintiffs 'an undivided onehalf (1/2) of all the oil, gas and other minerals presently owned by grantors and not heretofore reserved or excepted by prior grantors.'
Meanwhile the vendors on August 1, 1964, executed a 'correction deed' covering the mineral rights to their attorney, J. Patrick Hand, for an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals, in and under the Blanche W. Owen property (recorded August 19, 1964). Hand and his wife on August 24, 1964, executed a quitclaim deed to the vendors covering the same mineral interests but this was not recorded until August 26, 1968. 2
The crux of the controversy stemmed from the assertion by plaintiffs that prior to the execution of the memorandum agreement plaintiffs examined the record, found that vendors were the owners of all minerals of the property, that prior to and at the time of such agreement defendants represented to plaintiffs that the county clerk's records were in error and that Blanche W. Owen, the mother of Charles C. Owen, was the owner of one-half of the minerals, defendants actually owning only one-half, that defendants would correct such error by reconveyance to Blanche W. Owen of half of the minerals, and that after the closing of the sale the mineral interests in the Blanche W. Owen property would be as follows: one-half Blanche W. Owen, one-fourth defendants, one-fourth plaintiffs.
It is here urged by plaintiffs that the judgment was not substantially supported and was against the great weight of the evidence. They further argue that the court erred in applying the parol evidence rule and disregarding the testimony of plaintiffs, which would tend to show what their clear understanding was of the meaning and intent of the July 20 memorandum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albrecht v. Zwaanshoek Holding En Financiering, B.V.
...fraud must do so clearly and distinctly and prove the same so as to satisfy the mind and conscience of its existence. Reed v. Owen, 523 P.2d 869 (Wyo.1974). The only evidence submitted by Albrecht on the issue of fraud is his own declaration. This does not meet the clear and convincing evid......
-
Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Air Freight, Inc.
...when the facts and circumstances out of which it is alleged to arise are consistent with honesty and purity of intention. Reed v. Owen, Wyo., 523 P.2d 869, 871 (1974). Fraud must be established by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, and will never be presumed. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, ......
-
Duffy v. Brown
...when the facts and circumstances out of which it is alleged to arise are consistent with honesty and purity of intention. Reed v. Owen, Wyo., 523 P.2d 869, 871 (1974). Fraud must be established by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence, and will never be presumed. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, ......