Court Opinion

ID: 9794620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:08:34.327564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:13.309343
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I am in accord with both the majority of the court and Justice Raper that this case should be reversed. It is clear to me that the district court erred in refusing to permit the amendment by the plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 15(b), W.R.C.P. The evidence that was submitted was sufficient to try title under either § 1-32-201, W.S.1977, or § 1-32-202, W.S.1977, including the question of whether the plaintiffs were or were not in possession of the real property in issue. In accordance, then, with the authorities cited in the majority opinion, the amendment which was sought pursuant to Rule 15(b), W.R.C.P., should have been permitted. It does not seem to me that it is material whether the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act was presented as a part of the appellants’ motion in the district court because in this instance the relief would be identical.
I find that I am satisfied as well that the district court erred in its Finding No. 1, which reads:
“Plaintiffs have failed to show in their presentation of evidence, a connected chain of title vesting a legal estate in them to certain real property described in their complaint as follows: (Cabin # 1) Lode Claims, Sur. # 423 Olney, Gold Coin, Emma G. & Clara B.S. 34-18-78 82.282 A. less Tracts in Clara B. (2 A. more or less 80A.)”
As Justice Raper points out, the law does not require the appellants to establish a chain of title beyond the common grantor, in this instance Sol Rogers Teague. Torgeson v. Connelly, Wyo., 348 P.2d 63 (1959); Dame v. Mileski, 80 Wyo. 156, 340 P.2d 205 (1959); and York v. James, 62 Wyo. 184, 165 P.2d 109, 162 A.L.R. 831 (1946). I, therefore, agree with Justice Raper’s disposition of this particular issue.
1 also am satisfied, as is Justice Raper, that the issuance of the patent to the mining claims did not have any impact upon the title which is in issue. The real property in question retained the same legal description after the patent as it had before. The difference simply is that prior to the patent the right of ownership was limited to a right to receive a patent upon compliance with the statutory conditions. After the patent the patentee owned the property in fee simple, and a conclusion that the issuance of the patent required the appellants to prove their chain of title beyond ownership by the common grantor is erroneous.
At this juncture I arrive at concerns which are somewhat different from either the majority opinion or Justice Raper’s position. These relate to the second issue as stated by the appellants in their brief as follows:
“Did the Court err in finding that Appellants received no estate in real property by virtue of the Heath-Bragg quitclaim deed?”
My perceptions of this case leave me with the conclusion that the deed from Helen B. Heath to the appellants is ambiguous so far as the description of the property conveyed is concerned. While the position of the appellants is that the deed is not ambiguous, they do contend that ambiguity would not cause the deed to fail. With this latter contention I am in accord.
The deed to Helen B. Heath from Teague describes the property as follows: '
“Lode Claims, Sur # 423, S. 34-18-78 Olney, Gold Coin, Emma G. & Clara B. 82.282 A. Less tracts sold out of Clara B. (2A. M or L) 80 A.”
The description in the deed from Helen B. Heath to the Braggs reads as follows:
“(Cabin # 1) Lode Claims, Sur. # 423 Olney, Gold Coin, Emma G. & Clara B S. 34-18-78 82.282 A. less Tracts in Clara B. 2 A. more or less 80A. Book 559/354.”
The thrust of appellants’ position is that they received by virtue of this conveyance all of the described lode claims less certain tracts located in the Clara B. claim consist*513ing of 2 acres more or less. My concern arises out of the necessity for ascribing some significance to the phrase “(Cabin # 1),” and I conclude that the deed is susceptible to the construction that there was conveyed to the Braggs a tract identifiable from the parenthetical phrase “(Cabin # 1)” within these several lode claims, but which tract could only be ascertained by the assistance of extrinsic evidence.
It is elementary that the Braggs are called upon to establish their claim by demonstrating the strength of their own title, and cannot simply rely upon any weakness in the defendant’s title. Allen v. Houn, 30 Wyo. 186, 219 P. 573 (1923); Lee v. Cook, 2 Wyo. 312 (1880); 25 Am.Jur.2d Ejectment § 19, p. 553; and 28 C.J.S. Ejectment § 10, p. 856. This proposition, of course, calls upon the Braggs to demonstrate the extent of their ownership in or title to the tract in question, whether only part of the tract or all of the tract.
I, therefore, would reverse and remand this case to the district court. I would require the district court to allow the amendment under Rule 15(b), W.R.C.P., but I would direct the district court to resolve the ambiguity in the deed. If additional evidence were required in order to resolve that ambiguity the district court should proceed with a further hearing to develop such evidence. In this disposition I then agree with Justice Raper that the only question is whether the appellants’ title is better than that of the appellees, but I would require in addition the resolution of the question of the extent of appellants’ ownership in the tract.