Court Opinion

ID: 9611970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:58.379329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:55.189288
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree with the rationale or the result reached in this case. There was no substantial evidence to support a finding that the intention of the parties was to create a life estate in the father with remainder over to the son. Neither the father nor the son contend this to be their intention. Their testimony was otherwise.
The quiet title action focused on the force and effect of two contemporaneous deeds.
The sons’s deed was executed by the father without consideration, delivered to the son and recorded by him. The deed purported on its face to convey fee simple title to the son without reservation.
The deed back to the father was dated and acknowledged before a notary one day later. This deed purported on its face to reconvey fee simple title to the father without reservation. Although it was not recorded until almost ten years later, it was delivered to the father and no rights of third parties are involved in this action. The failure to record does not affect the rights between the parties to a deed.
The father denied any intention of making a gift inter vivos of this land to the son. The son claimed the land as a gift but admitted his signature on the father’s deed. He claimed that his father represented the deed to be a paper which gave the father the right to live in the big house on the home place.
The rationale of the opinion of the court although based upon contract law completely overlooks the fact that these two deeds *742were clear and unambiguous on their face and were dated and acknowledged one day apart. In such case the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the written instruments. (Oaks v. Hill, 182 Kan. 501, 322 P. 2d 814; Board of Library Directors v. City of Fort Scott, 134 Kan. 586, 7 P. 2d 533.) The bases upon which the language in a deed or deeds can be impeached are mutual mistake of the parties, fraud, misrepresentation and the like. (Board of Library Directors v. City of Fort Scott, supra.)
In disposing of the propriety of the judgment based upon equitable estoppel the majority opinion recognizes that certain aspects of that defense are lacking from the evidence. On page 739 of the opinion the court says:
". . . Suffice it to say appellees [the son and his wife] never changed their position or acted upon anything done by appellant [the father] to their prejudice. The exchange of the deeds caused not a ripple of change in the method of operations respecting the land to appellees’ detriment nor any other hind of financial detriment. . . .”
This being the case I fail to see how a basis has been established for impeaching the unambiguous deeds. There was no mutual mistake of the parties, and to establish fraud or misrepresentation it is necessary to establish an element of prejudice or detriment to the person who is the victim of the fraud or misrepresentation. This was admittedly lacking, for appellees’ claim to the property was based upon a gift inter vivos from the father and not by way of any contractual agreement supported by consideration.
In Pennington v. Tolle, 99 Kan. 436, 162 Pac. 316, it is said:
“. . . False representations as to an estate distinctly reserved in a transfer of property can not be regarded as a fraud upon a purchaser.” (p. 438.)
The reasoning in such case being that the purchaser got what he paid for and any representation as to an interest reserved by the grantor and not conveyed for consideration did not act to the purchaser’s detriment.
In our present case the son claimed as the donee of the land. He paid no consideration for the gift and suffered no detriment by reason of the claimed misrepresentation that the deed back to the father was only an agreement to allow his father to live in the big house on the home place. In the exchange of deeds he gained nothing but neither did he lose anything nor suffer detriment.
It is impossible for me to understand the rationale of the majority *743opinion. It appears to hold the deed back to the father was void and of no effect. It then reforms the deed to the son so as to reserve a life estate in the father and transfers a remainder interest only to the son.
Parol evidence should not have been admitted to vary the terms of these two contemporaneous fee simple deeds. The deed back to the father placed the legal and equitable title in the father. Therefore I respectfully dissent.