Tilton v. Bader

• Decision Date: 25 October 1917
• Docket Number: No. 31612.,31612.
• Citation: 181 Iowa 473,164 N.W. 871
• Parties: TILTON v. BADER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

181 Iowa 473

164 N.W. 871

TILTON

v.BADER ET AL.

No. 31612.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; William Hutchinson, Judge.

The plaintiff is the sister of defendants, John, Henry, William, and Louis Bader.She alleged in her petition, filed June 29, 1916, that she acquired the two lots in controversy by deed from her mother, Amelia Bader, March 28, 1908, the same being recorded April 29, 1910, that said Amelia departed this life in April, 1910, and that said defendants claim some interest in the lots.She prayed that her title be quieted.The defendants interposed a general denial, and adopted the allegations of the petition of intervention.Therein Minnie H. Bader, wife of Louis Bader, alleged that said Amelia died as above stated, seised of the said lots, leaving plaintiff and defendants as her heirs; that her estate has been fully settled; that about the year 1894 deceased came into possession of $1,600 as her dower interest in land in Cherokee county, partitioned among her children; that the court ordered her share of the proceeds derived from the sale of the land to be retained by the clerk of court, and that $500 thereof be invested in the lots in controversy as a home for said Amelia, and thereafter in 1894Daniel Melter was appointed guardian of her person and property; that from that time until her death she was feeble, infirm, and old and incapable of caring for her estate or making contracts; that in March, 1908, her personal property had been used up in her care, and the guardian made his final report, and was duly discharged, whereupon Amelia Bader went to the home of plaintiff in Minnesota; that about March 28, 1908, knowing the weak and infirm mental condition of the said Amelia Bader, and that the said Amelia Bader was of weak and unsound mind, and not capable of contracting with reference to her property rights, fraudulently, and with the intent to then and there cheat, wrong, and defraud the said Amelia Bader out of her real estate, and for the purpose of cheating, wronging, and defrauding the defendants herein out of any estate which the said Amelia Bader might leave in case of her death, procured from the said Amelia Bader the deed referred to in plaintiff's petition; thereof being attached thereto, that intervener cared for, boarded, and nursed said Amelia many years, and had an account for so doing greatly in excess of the value of said lots; that she did not file her claim against her estate for the reason that all the defendants herein named have orally agreed to deed to this intervener all their right, title, and interest in and to said real estate herein described, and have deeded their interest in said property to the intervener herein in payment for her services for so caring for the said Amelia Bader during her lifetime.Intervener further alleged that plaintiff fraudulently kept from the records the deed she had procured by fraud until Amelia Bader was dead, and that this intervener is the absolute and unqualified owner of four-fifths interest in said lots and plaintiff of one-fifth, and she prays that the petition be dismissed; that the deed of deceased to plaintiff be canceled and decreed to be of no force or effect, and that plaintiff and intervener be decreed to be the owners of the respective parts of the lots as stated.The deed recited a consideration of $1 relationship and affection and “other valuable consideration” as the consideration for its execution.By way of amendmentintervener alleged that Henry Bader had been in occupancy of the lots long prior and ever since the death of Amelia Bader under color of right and claim of ownership in the same and in the parties to this action as above alleged, said occupancy and claim having been “acquiesced in by all the parties hereto” and having been adverse to the claims of right and title therein in the plaintiff herein.Another paragraph alleged adverse possession as to plaintiff without fixing the time.To the petition of interventionplaintiff demurred on three grounds:

First.The allegations of the petition do not entitle the e plaintiff to the relief demanded, or to any relief whatever.

Second.The petition shows upon its face that the intervener's cause of action, as therein set forth, is barred by the statutes of limitations.

Third.That the relief demanded is based upon the claim of fraud, in procuring and filing the deed for record, and the petition shows upon its face that said deed was procured and filed for record, and notice thereof given by filing for record on the 29th day of April, 1910, more than 5 years before the commencement of this action, and that therefore any claim on the part of the intervener or any other person that the said deed is fraudulent is now barred by the statute of limitations of the state of Iowa.”

This demurrer was sustained, and as the intervener declined to plead further, decree was entered, quieting title in plaintiff.The defendants and intervener appeal.Reversed.C. M. Smith, of Cherokee, for appellants.

Molyneux & Maher, of Cherokee, for appellee.

LADD, J.

The sole issue is whether the cause of action pleaded in the petition of intervention is barred by the statute of limitations.Amelia Bader signed a deed, conveying the lots in controversy, March 28, 1908, and it was duly recorded April 29, 1910, she having died on the 17th of that month.The petition of intervention discloses that but for the execution of such deed the intervener would have been owner of an undivided four-fifths of said lots.To defeat the deed intervener further alleges: (1) That at the time said deed was made the grantor was feeble-minded and incapable of executing said deed and the grantee so knew; (2) that the deed was procured by fraud; and (3) that there was no consideration.The prayer is that it be set aside and canceled, and that intervener be decreed owner of an undivided four-fifths, and plaintiff an undivided one-fifth of said lots.Suit was begun June 29, 1916, and the petition of intervention filed September 5th following, so that more than 5 years had elapsed since the filing of the deed for record and less than 10 years.Actions may be brought after their causes accrue and not afterwards when--

“(6) * * * founded on unwritten contracts, those brought for injuries to property, or for relief on the ground of fraud in cases heretofore solely cognizable in a court of chancery, and all other actions not otherwise provided for in this respect, within five years; (7) those founded on written contracts, or on judgments of any courts except those provided for in the next subdivision, and those brought for the recovery of real property, within ten years.”Section 3447, Code.

[1]The trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition of intervention on the ground that intervener's action brought for relief on the ground of fraud, and, unless the action is for the recovery of real property, the ruling must be approved.Had the deed been filed for record prior to the grantor's death, all parties must have been held to have then been informed of its execution.Bishop v. Knowles, 53 Iowa, 268, 5 N. W. 139;Laird v. Kilbourne, 70 Iowa, 83, 30 N. W. 9;McDonald v. Bayard Sav. Bank, 123 Iowa, 413, 98 N. W. 1025.

Whether knowledge thereof is to be inferred from the recording after death is a somewhat different question, and need not now be considered, for, conceding that all parties connected with the case were aware of the making of the deed the day signed, more than 5 years and less than 10 years had elapsed when the action was begun.

[2] The sole issue, then, is one at law, and exacts a decision as to whether the action is one brought to recover real property or for relief on the ground of fraud in a case heretofore solely cognizable in a court of chancery.This depends on the nature of the cause of action, and is to be determined rather from the object and purpose of the suit than from the...