Opinion ID: 896323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract for Deed Land

Text: [¶ 9] Nancy testified the three quarters of land purchased on a contract for deed during the marriage were paid for [t]hrough cattle. When they sold the calves, grain. She testified, To my knowledge, Dale and Otto Barth both made the payments on the contract for deed. She testified, I am sure Otto wrote the checks, because Dale doesn't own or take care of a checking account. [¶ 10] Nancy introduced as an exhibit a contract for deed executed on December 30, 1991, for the sale and purchase of three quarters of land in Oliver County, described as NW ¼, NE ¼, and SW ¼, Section 16-142-83, for $86,400, with a down payment of $25,920, and the balance payable in four installments due on December 1 in the years 1992-1995. The contract for deed recites it is by and between KENNETH PORSBORG and DARLENE PORSBORG, husband and wife (hereinafter `Seller'), ... and OTTO BARTH and DALE BARTH, father and son, (hereinafter `Purchaser'). [¶ 11] Ellen Leinus, Oliver County abstracter, did a search on the three quarters of land, starting with the contract for deed, document number 73776, which was filed December 30, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. Leinus testified that, since then, on March 24, 1997, a quitclaim deed was entered, in which the grantor was Otto Barth and Barbara Barth, husband and wife, and the grantee was Barbara Barth, and there have been no other conveyances of title. [¶ 12] Dale testified he does not own any land. Dale testified Otto Barth made all the payments on the three quarters of land by checks written, Dale made none of the payments, the land is not under his control, and Otto Barth pays the taxes on the land. Dale testified his name was put on the contract for deed for secondary name. The way that was wrote up was for a contract for deed. If there is a default on a payment, that my dad would not have been able to make a payment on it in any way, the land would have went back to Porsborgs. [¶ 13] A choice between two permissible views of conflicting evidence is not clearly erroneous. Gregg, 1998 ND 204, ¶ 7, 586 N.W.2d 312. We conclude the trial court's findings of fact on the ownership, valuation, and distribution of the three quarters of land purchased by Dale and Otto Barth in 1991 are not clearly erroneous.