Title: Thom v. Thom
Citation: 171 Kan. 651, 237 P.2d 250
Docket Number: 38,410
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 1951

171 Kan. 651 (1951)
237 P.2d 250
CARL H. THOM, Appellant,
v.
OTTO HENRY THOM and RUTH THOM, Appellees.
No. 38,410

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 10, 1951.
*652 Harry K. Allen, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Thomas L. McGuire, of Medicine Lodge, and Robert L. NeSmith and Harold Irwin, both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
George Barrett, of Pratt, argued the cause, and Richard Barrett, of Pratt, and Ralph C. Hall, of Medicine Lodge, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This is an action to quiet title to real estate. Judgment was for the defendants and the plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff, Carl H. Thom, commenced this action against his brother, Otto Henry Thom, and Ruth, his wife, by the filing of a petition, in the district court of Barber county, wherein he claimed to be the owner of an eighty acre tract of land located in that county under and by virtue of a warranty deed from his mother, Mary Thom, dated April 25, 1950.
Ruth Thom was made a party to the action and is involved in this appeal solely because of marital relationship. For that reason no further reference will be made to her in this opinion and the contesting brothers, in the interest of brevity, will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
Otto Henry Thom responded to plaintiff's petition by an answer denying the latter's right to any relief and a cross-petition in which he alleged that under and by virtue of a warranty deed made, executed, and delivered by his mother, Mary Thom, on the 25th day of February, 1941, he was the owner of the real estate in question, subject only to a life estate in the mother, and asked that he have judgment quieting his title therein.
Other than as heretofore stated nothing is to be gained by detailing the contents of the pleadings filed by the parties or, for the moment, reference to any specific allegations thereof. It suffices to say that after joinder of issues the all important questions presented in the court below were whether the instrument on which defendant based his title (1) was delivered by the grantor and (2) conveyed a present interest in the real estate therein described or was testamentary in character.
At the conclusion of a trial the district court decided both questions against plaintiff and rendered judgment quieting defendant's title to the real estate except as to the life estate which it held had been acquired by plaintiff from Mrs. Thom under the deed executed by her on April 25, 1950. Thereupon, plaintiff perfected this appeal *653 where he now contends the trial court erred in holding there had been a delivery of defendant's deed and that such instrument was not testamentary in character but passed a present interest in the real estate therein described.
Touching plaintiff's first claim of error it can be said the defendant's deed, which was admitted in evidence, shows it was filed for record on the 25th day of February, 1941, and thereafter recorded in book 55 of deeds at page 102 in the office of the Register of Deeds of Barber county. Standing alone that fact in and of itself created a presumption of delivery which could only be overcome by competent evidence (Staats v. Staats, 148 Kan. 808, 82 P.2d 842). The trial court found evidence introduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to overcome the presumption and further found that other evidence disclosed it was the grantor's intention to deliver the instrument. We have examined the record and find ample evidence to sustain those conclusions. Therefore they must be upheld. The rule that factual findings of such character will not be disturbed on appellate review if the record discloses substantial competent evidence to sustain them is well established (See Goodell v. Olin, 170 Kan. 393, 227 P.2d 126; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737, 208 P.2d 209, and cases there cited).
In view of the issues involved the facts of this case are relatively unimportant and for that reason have not been labored. However, in approaching consideration of the second claim of error relied on as a ground for reversal of the judgment it should perhaps be stated the plaintiff inferentially concedes, if in fact he does not expressly admit, that if the conveyance relied on by defendant is to be construed as a deed and not testamentary in character then he is not entitled to the relief claimed in his petition and defendant is the owner of the fee title to the involved real estate subject only to rights reserved by the grantor in that instrument during her lifetime. Thus, since we have said that in the construction of deeds the intention of the grantor as gathered from an examination of the instrument in its entirety is controlling (See Epperson v. Bennett, 161 Kan. 298, 167 P.2d 606, Bennett v. Humphreys, 159 Kan. 416, 155 P.2d 431 and Howe v. Howe, 94 Kan. 67, 145 Pac. 873), it clearly appears our primary concern is with the contents of the instrument in question and our duty is to examine them for the purpose of ascertaining whether the trial court was correct in concluding they disclose an intent on the part of the grantor to pass a present interest in the lands therein described.
*654 The deed on which the claim of error now under consideration must stand or fall, omitting the legal description of the land conveyed and italicizing words which were inserted and are not part of the printed form, reads:
[description]
In announcing its decision the deed heretofore quoted passed a present interest in the land and in rendering judgment for the defendant as to the quiet title feature of the action the trial court in a well reasoned opinion said:
Our reports contain decisions touching every phase of the subject covered by the heretofore quoted portion of the trial court's opinion. See, e.g., In re Estate of Kruckenberg, 171 Kan. 450; 233 P.2d 472; Yordy v. Yordy, 169 Kan. 211, 217 P.2d 912; Jones v. Walker, 169 Kan. 29, 216 P.2d 822; Newell v. McMillan, 139 Kan. 94, 30 P.2d 126; Brady v. Fuller, 78 Kan. 448, 96 Pac. 854; Nolan v. Otney, 75 Kan. 311, 89 Pac. 690; Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110, 72 Pac. 567; Powers v. Scharling, 64 Kan. 339, 67 Pac. 820; Love v. Blauw, 61 Kan. 496, 59 Pac. 1059; and other cases therein cited. To review the foregoing cases would add nothing to the body of our law for they definitely establish this court's position on the subject of when a deed which has been delivered is to be construed as passing a present title and when it is to be construed as testamentary in character. All that need be said is that after giving them careful consideration we have been unable to find anything wrong with the trial court's opinion or the reasons therein given for its decision on the point in question. Therefore, based on what is said and held in such decisions, we are constrained to concur in its view and hold there is nothing in the wording of the defendant's deed warranting a conclusion that instrument was intended to be testamentary in character and that it must be construed as a deed conveying him a present interest in the land therein described.
For all practical purposes the conclusion just announced ends this lawsuit. However, so that we cannot be charged with having overlooked it a final point will be given brief consideration. Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in overruling his motion to require the defendant to elect as to whether, under allegations of his cross-petition, he was relying upon being the owner of the title to the land involved or was seeking to recover for repairs and improvements placed on the premises. The point has little merit. Under the undisputed record defendant was in peaceable possession of the real estate as an occupying claimant. As such, having been sued in an action which if successful would result in evicting him from the premises, there can be no doubt that under the clear and unequivocal provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-1901, he had the right to assert title and ownership under his deed, supplemented by a contract with his mother for possession of the premises during her lifetime, and at the same time claim compensation *657 for the full value of all lasting and valuable improvements made on the land in the event he was unsuccessful in establishing his claim of title.
The judgment is affirmed.