U.S. v. Stubbs, 83-1211
Decision Date | 14 November 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1211,83-1211 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd R. STUBBS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John W. Call (Anthony M. Thurber on brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendant-appellant.
Ellen J. Durkee, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Brent D. Ward, U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, Ralph H. Johnson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, Dirk D. Snel and J. Carol Williams, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal arises out of a dispute over title to an eighty-acre tract of land in a national forest in Utah. 1 This is the second time the dispute has been before us. In Stubbs v. United States, 620 F.2d 775 (10th Cir.1980), we denied relief to Lloyd R. Stubbs in his quiet title suit against the United States on the ground that it was barred by the twelve-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a(f). Thereafter, Stubbs apparently persisted in asserting rights to the property, and now the United States has sued him seeking to quiet its title to the tract.
On stipulated facts, the district court entered judgment in favor of the United States. Stubbs appealed. We affirm.
The district court in the instant case rejected defendant Stubbs' contention that a 1926 deed by which the land's owner, John R. Stubbs, and his wife conveyed title "to The Estate of Jesse G. Stubbs, deceased, Grantee," was void. It then found that Clifford Stubbs, to whom the real estate was distributed pursuant to the final settlement order in the Jesse Stubbs probate proceeding, had good title, which he conveyed when he sold the land to the United States in 1937. The district court treated the other issues raised--whether the United States had acquired title by its own adverse possession, the adverse possession of its predecessor in title, or a combination of both--as moot.
Defendant Stubbs claims to hold his title through a quitclaim deed signed by the heirs of John R. Stubbs, which he recorded in 1960. Most of the relevant stipulated facts are detailed in our earlier opinion, see 620 F.2d at 777-79, and will be repeated here only as necessary to our decision.
Stubbs bases his argument that the deed to the deceased Jesse Stubbs estate was void principally on dictum in Nilson v. Hamilton, 53 Utah 594, 174 P. 624 (1918). In that case patentees who had acquired land under the homestead act conveyed their land in 1876 to "James L. Hamilton, or the estate of James L. Hamilton, deceased." Id. at 624 ( ). Hamilton had died in 1875. The court found that Hamilton had occupied the land during the period in which the patentees were seeking to perfect their homestead titles and had arranged to have the patentees convey the land to him once they acquired their patents. See id. at 625. The court found the deeds to be invalid because the arrangement was against public policy:
Id. at 625-26 (citation omitted).
Significant for our purposes here is what the court then said in dictum:
Id. at 626. Neither party has cited, and we have not been able to find, any other Utah case treating the validity of a deed to a deceased person or to a decedent's estate--although Utah State Bar Title Standard Rule 12 declares a deed to an estate of a deceased person a "nullity," citing the Hamilton dictum as its authority.
The ancient black letter law is that a deed to the estate of a deceased person is void for want of a grantee in being capable of taking the estate. See, e.g., Simmons v. Spratt, 1 So. 860, 862 (Fla.1887); In re Reason's Estate, 276 Mich. 376, 267 N.W. 863, 865 (1936); Kenaston v. Lorig, 81 Minn. 454, 84 N.W. 323, 323-24 (1900); 3 American Law of Property Sec. 12.40, at 282 (Casner ed. 1952); 6 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property Sec. 3005, at 340-343 (1962); 23 Am.Jur.2d Sec. 29 (1983). Nevertheless, even the cases stating this rule often gave equitable rights to reformation. See Life Insurance Co. v. Page, 178 Miss. 287, 172 So. 873, 876 (1937) ( ); 3 American Law of Property 282. And the trend in the more recent cases is to try to honor the intention of a grantor executing such a conveyance. See Holder v. Elmwood Corp., 231 Ala. 411, 165 So. 235, 236-37 (1936) ( ); Crouch v. Crouch, 241 Ark. 447, 408 S.W.2d 495, 497 (1966) ( ); McCollum v. Loveless, 187 Ga. 262, 200 S.E. 115, 117-18 (1939) ( ); Fisher v. Standard Investment Co., 145 Neb. 80 15 N.W.2d 355, 358-59 (1944) ( ); Haile v. Holtzclaw, 414 S.W.2d 916, 927 (Tex.1967) ( ); see also Matthews v. Greer, 260 S.W. 53, 54 (Mo.1924) ( ); Wilson v. Dearing, Inc., 415 S.W.2d 475, 477-78 (Tex.Civ.App.1967) ( ); Fidelity Securities Co. v. Martin, 117 Wash. 323, 201 P. 301, 304 (1921) ( ); City Bank v. Plank, 141 Wis. 653, 124 N.W. 1000, 1001-02 (1910) ( ); Black v. Beagle, 59 Wyo. 268, 139 P.2d 439, 444 (1943) ( ).
These cases ignore, if necessary, the conceptual problem that confounded the medieval conveyancers, who required an identifiable existing person to receive seisin at the time a deed was executed and title passed. The apparent willingness in these cases to honor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Ventura-Melendez
... ... Pappas , 814 F.2d 1342 (9th ... Cir.1987); United States v. Stubbs , 776 F.2d 1472 ... (10th Cir.1985); United States v. 1, 629.6 Acres of ... Land , 503 ... ...
-
Lipscomb v. U.S., 89-7399
...adverse possession. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2409a(g); United States v. Pappas, 814 F.2d 1342, 1343 n. 3 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Stubbs, 776 F.2d 1472, 1476 (10th Cir.1985). The Color-of-Title Act, however, gives those who have met criteria similar to those required for adverse possession ......
-
In re Haworth, Bankruptcy No. 99-10085
...(1998). Transfers of real property must go somewhere, and only a legal entity or person can hold title to land. United States v. Stubbs, 776 F.2d 1472, 1474 (10th Cir.1985). If property is conveyed in a deed to an entity without capacity to receive title, the conveyance is a nullity. Id. Si......
-
U.S. v. Hato Rey Bldg. Co., Inc., 87-1671
...California, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); United States v. Pappas, 814 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Stubbs, 776 F.2d 1472 (10th Cir.1985); United States v. 1,629.6 Acres of Land, 503 F.2d 764 (3d Cir.1974); Engel v. United States, 258 F.2d 50 (6th To escape......