Case Title: Gotheridge v. Unified School District

Citation: 212 Kan. 798, 512 P.2d 478

Docket Number: 46,973

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1973-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
212 Kan. 798 (1973)
512 P.2d 478
WALTER GOTHERIDGE, Appellant,
v.
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 365 IN THE STATE OF KANSAS, and WILBUR LOUK, PEARLINE STEPHENS AND ETHEL CONNER, as representatives of a class, ESTELLA STEIGER, OSCAR M. SCHOONOVER, ANNE M. SCHOONOVER, and the unknown heirs, executors, devisees, trustees, creditors and assigns of M.M. Minkler and Estella Steiger, both deceased, Appellees.
No. 46,973

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 14, 1973.
Edwin A. Lee, of Paola, argued the cause and L. Perry Bishop of Paola, was with him on the brief for the appellant.
Roy L. Cole, of Garnett, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is an action to quiet title to a one acre tract *799 of real estate in Anderson County, Kansas, upon which a school house is located but no longer used for school purposes.
At the time the action was filed the building was being used by the people of the surrounding community as a community center and public voting place.
Deeds in the chain of title pertinent to this appeal will be reviewed briefly.
In 1885 M.M. Minkler and his wife (patent owners) conveyed by warranty deed a one acre tract to School District No. 51. This one acre tract was described as follows:
In 1898 M.M. Minkler, a widower, conveyed by warranty deed to Rozelia Eyman the remaining 39 acres of said original 40 acre tract as follows:
In 1916 Rozelia Eyman and her husband conveyed by warranty deed the remaining 39 acres, plus an adjoining 40 acres to the south, by the following description:
Thereafter in 1941 a sheriff's deed to the property in question was executed as a result of a mortgage foreclosure action conveying the property to Travelers Insurance Company by a description which recited "less One (1) acre for school in the Northeast corner thereof."
Thereafter in 1941 the Travelers Insurance Company by a special warranty deed conveyed the property to Walter S. Gotheridge (plaintiff-appellant), by the following description:
In 1971, after this action was commenced, a joint tenancy warranty deed was executed by the grandchildren of M.M. Minkler (children of Estella Steiger) to Oscar M. Schoonover and his wife, Anne M. Schoonover (defendants-appellees), conveying the one acre tract in question as follows:
The one acre tract of real estate here in question has not been used for school purposes since April, 1964. Since that time the school building located on the one acre tract in question has been used as a community center and public voting place by members of a class, represented by Wilbur Louk, Pearline Stephens and Ethel Conner (defendants-appellees).
The grantors of the one acre tract in 1971, Illa Mae Green, Clifford L. Steiger, Ethel McCusker; and Edward Steiger, and the grantee, Oscar M. Schoonover, were grandchildren of M.M. Minkler. These grandchildren of M.M. Minkler were the sole and only heirs of Estella Steiger who was the daughter of said M.M. Minkler. Estella Steiger died intestate on July 28, 1954. M.M. Minkler died testate on January 7, 1918, and in his last will and testament as shown by the records in Case No. 2191 in the Probate Court of Anderson County, Kansas, his daughter, Estella Steiger, was the sole residuary legatee and devisee. The provision in the will reads:
The one acre tract in question was not listed or described anywhere in the estate of M.M. Minkler in the Probate Court of Anderson County, Kansas.
A number of qualified electors of the school district in question *801 in Anderson County filed a petition with the County School superintendent on the 21st day of April, 1964 to retain the school building for a community center.
On May 9, 1964, Walter Gotheridge purchased at a public sale an eight foot by ten foot building located on the one acre tract in question. Thereafter Mr. Gotheridge assumed possession and used said building for storage and other purposes. This building is not in controversy in this litigation.
Unified School District No. 365 of the State of Kansas (defendant-appellee) is the successor of School District No. 51 and School District No. 107.
On submission of the matter to the trial court it found that Oscar M. Schoonover and his wife were the owners of the one acre tract in question; that School District No. 365 was the owner of the school house located on the one acre tract in question, and that the members of the class herein represented have the right and permission to use the school house on the one acre tract as a community center. Accordingly, the trial court quieted title to the one acre tract in the name of Oscar M. Schoonover and his wife and issued further decrees in accordance with its findings.
Appeal has been dulyIt is admitted by all parties concerned that the appellant is the sole and only owner of the 39 acres of the 40 acre tract out of which the above described one acre tract was originally conveyed for school purposes.
The fundamental question is whether the deeds in the appellant's chain of title are effective to convey what for brevity and convenience is usually spoken of as the fee of the land servient to the easement for school purposes.
It is not debatable M.M. Minkler in 1885 conveyed the one acre tract for school purposes only, and that he reserved the reversionary interest for himself, his heirs and assigns, "whenever said School District shall fail to use the land for school purposes."
K.S.A. 58-2202 provides in part:
It is established that the word "estate" used in the above quoted statute means "interest", so the statute is to be read as though it were phrased:
The above statute has been liberally construed over the years as one designed to simplify conveyancing. In Fast v. Fast, supra, the court said:
The appellees rely on the language employed by M.M. Minkler in the deed of 1898 conveying the tract to Rozelia Eyman. They argue the deed "specifically stated that the one acre strip, being described by metes and bounds, was excepted from the conveyance, and concludes with the words, `the amount of land hereby conveyed being Thirty-nine (39) acres.'" They further argue:
*803 The general tenor of prior Kansas decisions construing the language found in K.S.A. 58-2202 leads us to reject the appellee's argument.
It is generally held that the servient estate in a small tract of land, usually in the form of a strip set apart for highway, railway right of way or school easement purposes, passes with a conveyance of the fee to the abutting tract of which the small tract formerly was a part. The servient estate passes with such a conveyance, even though no express provision to that effect is contained in the instrument. The rule is that such estate passes unless it is excluded by clear, unequivocal, and unmistakable language. (Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Hollow, 70 F.2d 811; Barker v. Lashbrook, 128 Kan. 595, 279 Pac. 12; and Roxana Petroleum Corp. v. Jarvis, 127 Kan. 365, 273 Pac. 661.)
The reason for the rule was stated in Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Hollow, supra, in the following language:
The description of the abutting tract conveyed is immaterial  whether the whole tract is conveyed out of which a small tract is excepted, or whether only the remainder of the abutting tract is conveyed. A conveyance of the fee of the abutting tract, out of which a small tract has been carved for easement purposes, passes the fee title to the servient estate in the land embraced within the easement.
In the instant case M.M. Minkler at no time, subsequent to the original grant of the easement to the school district in 1885, mentioned the reversionary interest in the one acre tract in question, either in the subsequent conveyance in 1898 or in his will. To use clear, unequivocal, and unmistakable language reserving the reversionary interest in the one acre tract in himself, when he conveyed the abutting 39 acre tract to Rozelia Eyman, M.M. Minkler should have specifically made reference to his reservation of the reversionary interest. This he failed to do.
*804 Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to quiet title to the one acre tract of land here in question in the name of Walter Gotheridge, the appellant.
The ownership of the school building herein situated on the one acre tract in question is controlled by Rose v. School District No. 94, 162 Kan. 720, 179 P.2d 181. There a school building was constructed and school maintained on a one acre tract of land conveyed to the school district, wherein the deed provided that in the event the premises were abandoned for school purposes the land therein described should revert to the grantors, with the appurtenances, and the court held the reversion clause in such deed was ineffectual to constitute the buildings a part of the realty and that title thereto and ownership thereof, upon abandonment of the land so conveyed for school purposes did not pass to the successors in interest of the original grantors but remained in the school district.
Hence, Unified School District No. 365, the appellee herein, must deal with the appellant, who is the owner of the land upon which the school building is situated, in resolving its future course of action.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed with directions to quiet title to the one acre tract in the name of the appellant.