Caruso v. Parkos

637 N.W.2d 351 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The property was owned by Virginia M. Parkos and two of her children, P, and Carol Nattress. Virginia held an undivided five-sevenths interest in the property, while Carol and P each held a one-seventh interest in the property. In April 1997, Carol approached Virginia about receiving an early inheritance to pay for Carol's medical expenses. Virginia would convey her five-sevenths interest in the property to Carol and P, and that P would then obtain a loan to pay Carol $50,000 for Carol's share of the property, thus providing Carol with the money to pay for needed medical care. A warranty deed was prepared and signed by Virginia on June 20, and the deed was provided to Sikyta for recording. Another deed, conveying Carol's interest in the property to P, was executed on June 26 and returned to Sikyta for recording. The deeds, however, were not promptly recorded by Sikyta's office. On October 27, 1997, Virginia executed and delivered a warranty deed to D, her son, purporting to convey the same property that was the subject of the first two deeds. The October 27 deed was recorded with the Valley County register of deeds on October 29. P contacted the register of deeds regarding her loan application process and was informed that the only deed on file with respect to the subject property was the deed conveying the property from Virginia to D. Susan contacted Sikyta, who, on November 14, recorded the June 20 and 26 deeds. P filed a quiet title action alleging that both Virginia and D had been aware of the June 20, 1997, conveyance at the time that the October 27 deed was executed and that there was no consideration given at the execution of the October 27 deed. D filed a motion for summary judgment, which was overruled. The district court determined that Virginia was competent when she executed the first deed, that there was consideration given for the conveyance, and that the deed had been delivered to Sikyta, who was acting as an escrow agent. It determined that D had knowledge of the June 20 deed prior to his receipt and recording of the October 27 deed. The district court quieted title to the subject property in P. D appealed.