Yliniemi v. Mausolf

• Citation: 371 N.W.2d 218
• Decision Date: 02 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. C4-84-2018,C4-84-2018
• Parties: Arthur D. YLINIEMI, et al., Respondents, v. Kenneth J. MAUSOLF, et al., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, Respondents, Betty Rasinski, Third Party Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Page 218

371 N.W.2d 218

Arthur D. YLINIEMI, et al., Respondents, v. Kenneth J. MAUSOLF, et al., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, Respondents Betty Rasinski, Third Party Defendant, Appellant.

No. C4-84-2018.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

July 2, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The trial court erred in reforming the 1962 Boettcher-Mausolf deed since there was insufficient evidence of mutual mistake or any valid agreement superseding the plain language of the recorded deed. The standard of proof requires clear and convincing evidence.

2. The evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the Rasinskis purchased the land from the Carlsons in bad faith.

3. The trial court's findings may be set aside, since they were influenced by erroneous evidentiary rulings at trial.

4. The court's finding regarding adverse possession was error since possession by the Mausolfs was neither adverse nor hostile for the requisite 15 year period.

John E. Valen, Little Falls, for respondents.

Michael P. Perry, Little Falls, for respondents.

Gordon Rosenmeier, Little Falls, for appellant.

Heard, considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J., and FORSBERG and LESLIE, JJ.

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

Betty Rasinski appeals the trial court's ruling reforming a 1962 deed between Clifford and Lois Boettcher and Ken and Viola Mausolf to include certain disputed riverfront property.

FACTS

By a deed dated July 22, 1954 and recorded October 11, 1954, Clifford W. Boettcher and Lois L. Boettcher became owners of the following real estate in Morrison County, Minnesota:

The Southwest quarter of Southwest quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Thirty (130), Range Twenty-nine (29).

A series of transactions involving this land is the origin of this suit. In 1959, the Boettchers sold two acres to Kenneth J. Mausolf and Viola Mausolf on which they built their house. (See Parcel 1, Diagram A, attached as Illustrative Sketch.) This land is legally described as follows:

Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of Southwest quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Thirty (130), Range Twenty-nine (29); thence go North on the East line of said SW 1/4 for a distance of 16 rods; thence go West on a line parallel to the South line of said Section 16 for a distance of 20 rods; thence go South on a line parallel with the East line of said SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 to the South line of said section, a distance of 16 rods; thence to East on the South line of said Section 16 for a distance of 20 rods to the place of beginning.

In 1962, the Mausolfs decided to purchase additional land from the Boettchers immediately north of their first parcel. (Parcel 2, Diagram A) This second parcel extends to the Mississippi River. A deed was executed by the Boettchers dated September 20, 1962 and recorded on September 26, 1962 in Book 154 of Deeds, page 526. It contains the following legal description:

Parcel 1: A part of the Southwest quarter of Southwest quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4), Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Thirty (130), Range Twenty-nine (29), described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said SW 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 16, Township 130, Range 29; thence go North on the East line of said SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 for a distance of 16 rods to the point of beginning of the parcel herein conveyed; thence continue North along said East line of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 to 40 rods to the shore line of the Mississippi River; thence go West 10 rods to a point; thence go South 40 rods to a point intersecting the North line of the real estate heretofore conveyed by Warranty Deed recorded in Book 146 Deeds, page 507; thence go East 10 rods to the point of beginning of the land herein conveyed; and

Parcel 2: That part of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4), Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Thirty (130), Range Twenty-nine (29), described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the said SW 1/4 of SW 1/4; thence go West 20 rods to the point of beginning of the parcel herein conveyed; thence continue West 7 rods; thence go North 16 rods; thence go East 7 rods; thence go South 16 rods to the point of beginning of the said parcel of land herein conveyed.

(Emphasis added.)

In December 1969, the Boettchers sold to Ralph J. and Kathleen Carlson all of the land in the southwest section, less the land already sold to the Mausolfs. This was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Morrison County in Book 146 of Deeds on page 507 and Book 154 of Deeds on page 526. (Parcel 3, Diagram A)

Both the Boettchers and the Carlsons knew that the Mausolfs used the riverfront property. Neither objected to that use by the Mausolfs.

On May 21, 1970, the Mausolfs conveyed the second tract described in the Boettcher deed, the West 7 rods, to Sylvester and Betty Rasinski. (Parcel 4, Diagram A)

Later in 1970, the Rasinskis bought from the Carlsons the East 28 rods of the SW section, "except those portions thereof sold and conveyed [to the Mausolfs] as described in deeds recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Morrison County, Minnesota in Book 146 of Deeds on page 507 in Book 154 of Deeds on page 526." (Parcel 3, Diagram A) The Rasinskis paid valuable consideration for this land.

In 1979 the Mausolfs listed their property for sale, stating the property was water frontage real estate with 165 feet on the Mississippi River. Relying on this affirmation, the Yliniemis (plaintiffs) bought the property. Thereafter, they occupied and maintained the riverfront property in the same fashion as had the Mausolfs.

The dispute in this action is over the "triangle" of riverfront property that both Rasinski and the Yliniemis claim they own. (Parcel A, Diagram A)

The Yliniemis sued the Mausolfs for reformation of the 1979 deed. The Mausolfs then began a third party action against the Rasinskis, claiming the original deed from the Boettchers to Mausolfs should be reformed to include the disputed riverfront property.

Both Ken Mausolf and Sylvester Rasinski were deceased prior to trial. The Boettchers were not available to testify.

At trial, counsel for the Mausolfs called John Mausolf (son of Viola and Ken Mausolf) to the stand to give his opinion regarding the ownership of the disputed land. Over objection, he was allowed to testify that he thought his parents owned the riverfront land. No foundation was given for Mausolf's expertise in real estate before this opinion was given.

Counsel for the Mausolfs also called neighbor Dan Wendland to the stand to give an opinion about the ownership of the disputed property. Over objection, the witness gave his opinion that the Mausolfs owned the disputed land.

Viola Mausolf testified that they bought the riverfront property from the Boettchers because they wanted access to the river. She said Boettcher needed money at the time and offered to sell the piece down to the river if they would buy another section, 7/10 of an acre along the road west of the original plot of land they bought in 1959.

Mausolf admitted she did not remember when the Rasinskis talked to them about the property. Mausolf's memory was unclear about all the property transactions. Moreover, she admitted she did show the original deed to the Rasinskis, which omitted the disputed property. When she discovered the deed omitted the riverfront land, she contacted the Boettcher's son, but nothing else was done. Finally, she was not sure whether her husband admitted to the Rasinskis that they had not purchased the riverfront property in order to save on tax payments.

Betty Rasinski testified that she had no objection to the Mausolfs and later the Yliniemis using the triangle. She also testified that on the day they closed the purchase of the SW property from Carlson, Viola Mausolf showed her the 1962 Boettcher-Mausolf deed. The deed showed the words, "along the shoreline" had been deleted prior to recording and then initialed by Boettcher. Viola Mausolf told Rasinski she did not know who made that change.

The effect of this alteration was to remove from the tract conveyed about 165 feet of shoreline and the triangular area abutting it. This is the area in dispute. Rasinski also testified that she had paid Ken Mausolf to take care of the triangle in 1975 and 1976.

The trial court reformed the original Boettcher deed. It found that due to a mutual mistake, the deed description did not conform to the agreement Boettcher and the Mausolfs reached. It based the finding of mutual mistake on circumstantial evidence, mainly the testimony of Viola Mausolf. The court also found that the Rasinskis were not good faith purchasers.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err by reforming the 1962 deed?

2. Did the trial court err in finding the Rasinskis purchased the land from the Carlsons in bad faith?

3. Did the trial court err by allowing into evidence testimony by the Mausolfs' son and by their neighbor as to the ownership of the disputed land?

4. Was the trial court's finding regarding adverse possession error?

ANALYSIS

1. The question is whether reformation was proper under the facts of this case. A trial court's determination regarding reformation will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly contrary to the evidence. Owatonna Country Club, Inc. v. Kohlmier, 353 N.W.2d 227, 230 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), (citing Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 353, 205 N.W.2d 121, 124 (1973)).

A written instrument may be reformed if the following elements are proved: (1) there was a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intentions; (2) the written instrument failed to express the real intentions of the parties; and; (3) this failure was due to a mutual mistake of the parties, or a unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party. Owatonna, 353 N.W.2d at 230, (citing Nichols v. Shelard National...