Johnson v. Warden

SCOTT (R. H.), J. pro tem. Defendant Warden appeals on the judgment roll from a judgment for plaintiff quieting title to certain real property.

The questions requiring consideration on this appeal are whether the amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and whether the findings support the judgment against defendant Warden.

The complaint alleges, in count one, ownership in plaintiff and adverse wrongful claim by defendants. Count two alleges that defendants Chamberlain and Elstrod borrowed $2000 from plaintiff in November, 1931, and gave her a mortgage on the land in question as security for the loan, which was duly recorded with the registrar of titles. Four years later, being a year after the loan had matured, plaintiff accepted a deed to the property in lieu of payment of the mortgage. This deed did not show on its face that the property was registered under the Land Title Law, (Torrens Act) Deering’s General Laws (1937), vol. II, p. 4045 [Stats. 1915, p. 1932; Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 8589], due to mistake and inadvertence on the part of Chamberlain and Elstrod. Plaintiff, because of ignorance and inexperience, recorded the deed in the office of the county recorder and not in the office of the registrar of titles. Both offices were in the same room. Plaintiff took possession of the property and placed a “for sale” sign on it giving her name and address. Sometime in 1937 plaintiff discovered that an insurance company in 1934 had recorded a deficiency judgment [331]against Chamberlain and Elstrod in a sum in excess of $6000, which had become a lien on the property. It is further alleged that in February, 1940, defendant Warden came to Chamberlain and Elstrod and told them he had purchased the land from the tax collector and held tax title thereto, and that as “a matter of formality to satisfy the title company” he needed a quitclaim deed from the former owners. Chamberlain told him of the deed to Johnson, and Warden said he intended to secure a deed from her and that he was paying to have the deficiency judgment satisfied. Warden paid Chamberlain and Elstrod $10 each to sign a quitclaim deed to the property.

Count two further alleges that Warden had not purchased the land, that he had paid nothing for the deficiency judgment, which was then barred by the statute of limitations, that his representations were knowingly false and were made to deceive Chamberlain and Elstrod and to obtain the conveyance, and that if the latter had known the truth they would not have executed the quitclaim deeds. It further sets out that Warden is in the business of acquiring land by fraudulent methods and by taking advantage of ignorant and inexperienced persons, and had given no consideration except the total sum of $20, paid to his co-defendants.