Slawik v. Loseth

• Decision Date: 09 February 1940
• Docket Number: No. 32269.,32269.
• Citation: 290 N.W. 228,207 Minn. 137
• Parties: SLAWIK v. LOSETH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

290 N.W. 228

207 Minn. 137

SLAWIK v. LOSETH.

No. 32269.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 9, 1940.

Appeal from District Court, Anoka County; Leonard Keyes, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Harold J. Slawik against Ida Loseth. The court made findings for the plaintiff and against the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for amended findings or in the alternative a new trial, defendant appeals.

Order affirmed.

Louis B. Schwartz and Charles M. Bank, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Kyle & Kyle, of St. Paul, for respondent.

JULIUS J. OLSON, Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order denying her blended motion for amended findings or new trial.

The action is one to quiet title to certain real estate in Anoka county. The complaint alleges ownership in fee simple and possession by plaintiff; that defendant "claims some right, title or interest in and to said premises, adverse to the said plaintiff by virtue of a certain deed [describing the instrument and the date of its record] * * * that said deed was without consideration, and in fact was never delivered to defendant." It is further alleged that "if some interest did vest in defendant by virtue of said deed such interest was a security only, and the nature and extent of her interest in said premises is inferior to the title of plaintiff." The prayer for relief is that plaintiff be adjudged the owner of the fee and that defendant be declared to have no right or interest in the premises; that in event the court should determine "plaintiff is not entitled to the whole of the relief prayed for" that the court adjudge "the nature and extent of defendant's" rights thereto. The answer alleged defendant's ownership in fee and otherwise denied the allegations of the complaint. She prayed for judgment accordingly.

The court made findings that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the premises; that "defendant has not, nor has she ever had, any right, title, estate, lien on interest in or to said premises, * * * that no title thereto or interest therein was conveyed to or became vested in the said defendant by virtue of" the deed under which she claimed title; "that there was no intention on the part of the grantors in said deed to convey any right, title or interest in or to said premises to the said defendant and there was no intention on the part of the defendant to receive any right, title or interest" therein; "that the said deed was wholly without consideration, and was, in fact, never delivered to the defendant with the intention of vesting any right, title, estate, lien or interest in or to" the premises, "and never received by the said defendant with the intention of taking or acquiring any right, title, estate, lien or interest in or to said premises."

Defendant's motion for amended findings prays, in the alternative, for an order granting a new...