Opinion ID: 2407095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: cowdry property

Text: Mrs. Cowdry purchased 3.783 acres of a five, plus, acre tract, from Miss Link on March 1, 1965. On that date, Mrs. Cowdry and her husband executed an option, giving Miss Link an irrevocable option to repurchase the land and improvements thereon. The option required Mrs. Cowdry, in the event she decided to sell the property, to give Miss Link 60 days' notice, stating the terms of such sale, and Miss Link had the right, within 60 days, to purchase on such terms. On November 28, 1969, Mrs. Cowdry and her husband conveyed the entire tract, including that subject to the option, to their son and two daughters. No notice of intention to convey was given Miss Link. The conveyance was by general warranty deed which recited: (F)or and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration paid    the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does or do by these present GRANT, BARGAIN AND SELL, CONVEY AND CONFIRM   . Defendant's counterclaim against the Cowdrys, Luten and Park sought reconveyance of the property included in the option given her. At the trial, over defendant's objection that evidence to show that the transfer was a gift was inadmissible in view of the recitals of the deed, Mrs. Cowdry was permitted to testify that her children paid nothing for the property, that she did not receive the recited $1.00 consideration and that the consideration for the conveyance was the love and affection she had for her children. The trial court found that the transfer to the children did not create a right in appellant to reacquire the property. In this court, the appellant contends that the court erred in receiving the testimony of Mrs. Cowdry regarding the consideration for the deed because it contradicted the recitation of valuable consideration in the deed. The recital of consideration in the deed was not of a contractual matter. It was a mere statement of fact, subject to contradiction or explanation, at least insofar as such contradiction or explanation would not destroy the grant. The consideration of $1.00 recited was nominal only and the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of the parties as to the true consideration. Allaben v. Shelbourne, 357 Mo. 1205, 212 S.W.2d 719, 723-724 [5, 6] (1948); Finley v. Williams, 325 Mo. 688, 29 S.W.2d 103, 106 [12, 13] (1930); Edwards v. Latimer, 183 Mo. 610, 82 S.W. 109 (1904). Appellant relies upon the rule, stated in cases such as Yates v. Burt, 161 Mo.App. 267, 143 S.W. 73 (1912), that where a deed recites a valuable consideration, parol evidence is inadmissible to prove good consideration only. That rule is of questionable validity (4 Tiffany on Real Property (3rd ed.) § 984, pp. 72-74 (1939)), and subsequent cases in the state limit the rule to cases where the object of the evidence is to destroy the grant, not the situation in this case. See Johnston v. Bank of Poplar Bluff, 221 Mo.App. 127, 294 S.W. 111, 114 (1927). The trial court correctly determined this issue. In Miss Link's deeds to the Cowdrys she reserved an easement over the south 15 feet of the land conveyed in the following language: The Party of the First Part does hereby reserve unto herself, her heirs and assigns, an easement for Roadway purposes for the use and benefit of land owned by her adjoining the property herein conveyed on the West and North   . In their intervening petition, intervenors Cowdry, Luten and Park alleged that Miss Link threatened to use this easement strip if she was prevented from using other portions of the roadway for the proposed quarry operation. The intervenors sought an injunction against use of the easement by defendant for access to her land other than for domestic use and purposes. The trial court held that the easement was for the private use of Link for purposes of access for personal, domestic and agricultural use to land owned by defendant Link lying to the north and west of said property   . The court enjoined use of the easement for any other purpose. Appellant's attack on this limitation is meritorious. The reservation of easement in the deeds was not limited. Therefore, Miss Link had a right to use the easement for all reasonable roadway purposes, not restricted to user reasonably required at the time of the reservation. Karches v. Adolph Investment Corporation, 429 S.W.2d 788, 792-793 [1-7] (Mo.App.1968). The trial court's decree on this issue should be so amended. The decree should also be amended to exclude any limitation on Miss Link's right to a personal right, the reservation being of an appurtenant easement. Engelhardt v. Gravens, 281 S.W. 715, 718 [2] (Mo.1926). Inasmuch as the decree must be amended, there are other matters pointed out by appellant which should be corrected. The recital as to the ownership of Cutts, Jones and Pieters should show the ownership of the tracts separately. The condition of the roadway beyond Tracts 3 and 4 was not an issue and should not be a part of the findings. The same is true as to the use of the north branch of the paved road. Miss Link's right to repair the paved road, established by Leiweke v. Link, supra, should not be limited to retention of the present asphalt surface of that roadway. The decree of the trial court is affirmed in part. Insofar as necessary to effectuate the views herein expressed, the decree is set aside and the cause remanded with directions to enter a new decree in accordance with the rulings herein. Costs on this appeal shall be assessed one half against appellant Link, one fourth against respondents Jones and Pieters and one fourth against respondents Cowdry, Luten and Park. HIGGINS, C., concurs.