Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdefendantequitytrialwill
contractdefendanttrialappellantappellee

Related Cases

Wills v. Regan, 58 Wis.2d 328, 206 N.W.2d 398
View Case »
Swartz v. Becker, 246 N.J.Super. 406, 587 A.2d 1295
View Case »
Lucy Webb Hayes Nat. Training School for Deaconesses and Missionaries v. Geoghegan, 281 F.Supp. 116
View Case »
Donovan v. Bachstadt, 91 N.J. 434, 453 A.2d 160, 28 A.L.R.4th 1062
View Case »
Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 110 S.Ct. 1679, 109 L.Ed.2d 74, 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 849, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,824, 58 USLW 4462
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mason v. Ellison, 63 Ariz. 196, 160 P.2d 326

Facts

In 1938, Scott Ellison purchased an unimproved lot and later built a house on it. The house was sold under contract to Curtis, who then sold his equity to the Masons. An escrow was set up for the Masons to purchase the property from the Ellisons. However, a treasurer's deed was obtained by the Escrow Company due to delinquent taxes, which the Masons learned about after taking possession. The Masons later obtained a quitclaim deed from the Escrow Company before terminating the escrow agreement. The trial court quieted title in favor of the Masons against all defendants except the Ellisons, requiring the Masons to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price to the Ellisons.

In 1938, appellee Scott Ellison purchased an unimproved lot, which is involved in this action, from a man by the name of Skinner, for the sum of $200.

Issue

Whether the Masons, while in possession of the property under an executory contract, could acquire a superior title from a third party and whether the trial court's conditional decree requiring payment to the Ellisons was appropriate.

Appellants contend that a valid tax deed clothes the grantee with a new and complete title under an independent grant from the sovereign authority of the state.

Rule

A purchaser of real estate under an executory contract who is in possession cannot acquire an adverse interest while holding possession, and if they do, it will inure to the benefit of the vendor.

The law is well established that a purchaser of real estate, or an interest in real estate, under an executory contract of sale, who is in possession thereof, cannot acquire an adverse interest so long as he holds possession.

Analysis

The court applied the rule that a party in possession under an executory contract cannot claim a superior title while remaining in possession. The Masons took possession of the property under a contract and later acquired a quitclaim deed from the Escrow Company. However, since they were still in possession under the original contract, the title they acquired benefited the Ellisons, and they were estopped from challenging the Ellisons' title.

In view of these facts the title so acquired by appellants inured to the benefit of the appellees. Furthermore, appellants were estopped from attacking appellees' title as long as they remained in possession of the premises, under the facts and circumstances in this particular case.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, requiring the Masons to pay the Ellisons a specified amount to quiet title in their favor, as it was deemed inequitable for the Masons to benefit from the property without compensating the Ellisons.

The trial court by its judgment adjusted the equities of the parties to this action most fairly, giving to each that to which they were equitably entitled.

Who won?

Scott Ellison and Clymena Ellison prevailed because the court found that the Masons could not claim a superior title while in possession under the executory contract.

The trial court quieted title in appellants as against all of the individual defendants except Scott Ellison and his wife, appellees herein, and quieted title as against them, conditioned upon appellants paying to them something over $1500 and interest.

You must be