Opinion ID: 876710
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Rueb tract

Text: Prior to his death, Carlson purchased about 320 acres of property on a contract for deed from Reinhold and Alice Rueb. This property is referred to as the Rueb tract. When Carlson died, plaintiff became the owner of a one-third interest with the children owning the other two-thirds interest. Plaintiff expressed to attorney Granat the desire to sell the property to defendant, but was told that she could only dispose of her own one-third interest. In January 1965, defendant had a quitclaim deed prepared for the purpose of conveying plaintiff's one-third interest to him. Plaintiff had remarried by this time and was living in Indiana. Defendant mailed the deed to her along with a cover letter requesting her to sign the deed and return it. The letter stated, in pertinent part:    I am enclosing a deed for you to sign if its agreeable with you. I talked to a guy from the Federal Land Bank last fall, and he said the only way I possibly could borrow the money is to get a deed, so this is where I'm starting  if I can get the money. I will pay off Rinhold and Alice the $3000.00 for the 1/3 interest that is in your name. This would give me 1/3 interest and 2/3 interest for the kids. I will pay the back interest and keep up the taxes for the use of there share for 3 crop years, after that I will give them 1/4 of the crop split between them, on there 2/3 share  less 2/3 of the taxes.    The main reason I would like to get it payed off is that actually Rinhold and Alice could step in and repossess it and the kids would end up with nothing.    On March 1, 1965, plaintiff signed the quitclaim deed in Indiana and returned it to defendant. The original contract price for the Rueb tract was $5,500. At the time of the transfer in 1965, there was a $3,120 remaining balance on the principal. The contract was in default and back interest and taxes were owing. Subsequent to the quitclaim deed, which amounted to a transfer of a 1/3 interest in the property, defendant paid off the entire remaining balance, including the back taxes and interest. The District Court found:    There has been no showing that the price paid by the defendant at the time of the purchase of said 1/3 interest in the `Rueb' tract was less than the market value for said 1/3 interest at the time of the purchase and as such, must be considered as fair and adequate consideration for the `Rueb' tract.