HARBECK v ORR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14884 I N T E SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O MONTANA H F H F 1381 HELEN HARBECK , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, LOUISE T . ORR, MYRON C . ORR, J U A N I T A L. ORR and T E FIRST MONTANA TITLE H INSURANCE COMPANY, D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a , The Eon. J a c k L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant; Norman C. Robb a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana J a m e s , Sogard & ~ j l c ~ a f f e r t ~ e a t F a l l s , !lantana Gr , Lee A . J o r d a n a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent: M i l o d r a g o v i c h , Dale & Dye, M i s s o u l a , Montana Michael J. M i l o d r a g o v i c h a r g u e d , Y i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted2 F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 Decided: Filed : A p r i l 3 0 , 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendants L o u i s e O r r (mother) and Myron and J u a n i t a Orr ( s o n and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w ) a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l o r d e r of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , Helen Harbeck (Harbeck). Based upon t h e p a r t i e s ' a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s , summary judgment was e n t e r e d d e c r e e i n g t h a t t h e l i f e e s t a t e c l a i m e d by t h e mother, t h r o u g h h e r n o t i c e of l i f e e s t a t e a s r e c o r d e d i n Missoula County, was v o i d and of no f o r c e o r e f f e c t . The c o u r t reserved various other matters f o r t r i a l t o the court. Defendant F i r s t Montana T i t l e I n s u r a n c e Company d o e s n o t join i n t h i s appeal. I s s u e s discussed i n t h i s opinion a r e a s follows: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e mother d o e s n o t have a l i f e e s t a t e i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y ? 2. A r e t h e mother, son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l from c l a i m i n g a l i f e i n t e r e s t i n f a v o r of t h e mother? The D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded t h a t t h e mother c o u l d n o t have a l i f e e s t a t e b e c a u s e s h e c o u l d n o t have r e s e r v e d a l i f e e s t a t e i n t h e 1974 c o n t r a c t f o r deed between h e r s e l f and h e r s o n and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w . The c o u r t found t h a t t h e mother d i d n o t t h e n h o l d l e g a l t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y , p r e c l u d i n g any r e s e r v a t i o n i n f a v o r of h e r s e l f . thus W hold e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d o p t i n g such a narrow c o n c l u s i o n based upon t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary of t h e complex f a c t s i n o r d e r of d a t e : 1. The mother owned r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Missoula which i n c l u d e d a d u p l e x a p a r t m e n t house and s p a c e f o r p a r k i n g m o b i l e homes. I n 1971, t h e mother e n t e r e d i n t o a n o r a l agreement w i t h h e r son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w to s e l l the p r o p e r t y t o t h e s a i d s o n and daughter-in-law. The p a r t i e s o r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t t h e mother would remain l i v i n g i n one of t h e a p a r t m e n t s " f o r f r e e " f o r t h e r e s t of h e r l i f e . 2. The son and daughter-in-law attempted t o o b t a i n f i n a n c i n g t o accomplish t h i s s a l e , b u t w e r e u n a b l e t o do s o b e c a u s e of c r e d i t problems. For c r e d i t p u r p o s e s , a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w , t h e mother deeded t h e p r o p e r t y by w a r r a n t y deed t o t h e d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w ' s parents. A mortgage l o a n t h e n was g r a n t e d by a bank t o t h e daughter-in-law's parents, and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w 3. the record t i t l e holders. The s o n received the loan proceeds. S i x months l a t e r i n 1971, t h e mother a s s e l l e r and t h e s o n and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w a s b u y e r s reduced t h e o r a l agreement t o a h a n d w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t of s a l e . The c o n t r a c t i n c l u d e d a p r o v i s i o n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e mother had t h e r i g h t t o l i v e i n t h e duplex " r e n t f r e e " f o r a s long a s she d e s i r e d . The h a n d w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d by t h e p a r t i e s even though t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h a t t i m e was h e l d by t h e daughter-in-law's 4. parents. The son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w were u n a b l e t o keep up t h e payments r e q u i r e d t o be made t o t h e mother under t h e terms of t h e h a n d w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t . I n 1974, t h e mother f i l e d s u i t sounding i n f r a u d a g a i n s t t h e s o n , d a u g h t e r - i n law, and t h e d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w ' s p a r e n t s . S u i t was s e t t l e d when t h e d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w ' s p a r e n t s q u i t c l a i m e d t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w , e x i s t i n g mortgage. subject t o the The son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w thereupon e n t e r e d i n t o a f o r m a l , w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i t h t h e mother. With r e g a r d t o t h e l i f e e s t a t e , t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n s : "A. I t i s a g r e e d t h e [mother] now l i v e s i n t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d upon t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t s h e i s e n t i t l e d t o remain i n p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f , r e n t f r e e , f o r t h e r e s t of h e r l i f e ; p r o v i d e d , however, i t i s m u t u a l l y a g r e e d by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t i f t h e [mother] s h o u l d change h e r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e p r i o r t o h e r d e a t h t h e n h e r s a i d r i g h t t o t h e u s e and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x b u i l d i n g s h a l l t h e r e u p o n t e r m i n a t e and t h e [son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w ] s h a l l t h e n be e n t i t l e d t o t h e u s e , p o s s e s s i o n and enjoyment of s a i d n o r t h u n i t . . . "VI. . . . "B. The [mother] a g r e e s t h a t a s l o n g a s s h e l i v e s i n t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d upon s a i d r e a l p r o p e r t y s h e w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r and t h a t s h e w i l l pay and do (1) s h e w i l l pay f o r a l l g a s , t h e following: l i g h t s , e l e c t r i c i t y , w a t e r , h e a t , phone, t e l e v i s i o n , u t i l i t i e s u s e d , consumed o r c h a r g e d upon o r a g a i n s t s a i d n o r t h u n i t ; ( 2 ) she w i l l pay f o r any r e p a i r s , maintenance, upkeep and p a i n t i n g of t h e i n s i d e of t h e s a i d n o r t h u n i t ; ( 3 ) s h e w i l l pay a l l t a x e s t h a t may be l e v i e d , a s s e s s e d o r imposed upon o r a g a i n s t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n s i d e t h e s a i d n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x o r which may b e l o c a t e d e l s e w h e r e upon s a i d r e a l p r o p e r t y ; ( 4 ) i t i s h e r o b l i g a t i o n t o s e c u r e and pay f o r such i n s u r a n c e a s s h e may d e s i r e t o c a r r y upon h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t h a t s h e may have o r l o c a t e upon s a i d r e a l p r o p e r t y o r i n t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x b u i l d i n g . " The c o n t r a c t f o r deed was e x e c u t e d by t h e mother a s s e l l e r and by t h e son and daugher-in-law a s buyers. A t the t i m e of t h e c o n t r a c t ' s e x e c u t i o n i n 1974, t h e r e c o r d t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y was h e l d by t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w . N o t i c e of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed was n o t p l a c e d on r e c o r d . 5. The son and daughter-in-law up f o r s a l e . l a t e r put the property Harbeck, through h e r r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t and d a u g h t e r , S a l l y Lucas ( L u c a s ) , made a n o f f e r on t h e p r o p e r t y . A f t e r e x t e n s i v e n e g o t i a t i o n s a n agreement was e x e c u t e d between t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w a s s e l l e r s and Harbeck a s buyer f o r s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y . The agreement c o n t a i n e d a " r e n t - b a c k " p r o v i s i o n , under which t h e son and d a u g h t e r - in-law a g r e e d t o pay a monthly r e n t t o Harbeck f o r t h e a p a r t m e n t o c c u p i e d by t h e mother f o r a t e r m of f i v e y e a r s , with an option t o extend f o r an a d d i t i o n a l f i v e years. During t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y , Lucas r e c e i v e d t h e f u l l d e t a i l s of t h e m o t h e r ' s l i f e e s t a t e b o t h by e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t and by meeting w i t h and t a l k i n g t o t h e mother and son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w . The a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g : "11. Myron C. and J u a n i t a L. O r r informed S a l l y Lucas o f t h e r i g h t of L o u i s e T. O r r t o remain i n p o s s e s s i o n of and l i v e r e n t f r e e f o r t h e r e s t of h e r l i f e i n t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x b u i l d i n g and t h e y d e l i v e r e d t h e i r copy of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed of March 2 2 , 1974, c o n t a i n i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n quoted above i n P a r a g r a p h 1 7 above and S a l l y Lucas -read the same a t l e a s t t w i c e b e f o r e - - - a n o f f e r s h e made -on - b e h a l f of Helen Harbeck t o p u r c h a s e t h e s u b j e c t property. S a l l y Lucas a l s o t a l k e d t o L o u i s e T. O r r a b o u t t h e p r o p e r t y and L o u i s e T . O r r informed S a l l y Lucas of h e r s a i d r i g h t t o l i v e r e n t f r e e f o r t h e rest of h e r l i f e . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e mother caused t o be r e c o r d e d i n Missoula County a n o t i c e of l i f e e s t a t e which s e t f o r t h h e r c l a i m of i n t e r e s t . The p r e s e n t a c t i o n was b r o u g h t by Harbeck a f t e r t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w had f a i l e d t o make t h e r e n t a l payments r e q u i r e d under t h e " r e n t - b a c k " p r o v i s i o n s of t h e i r agreement w i t h Harbeck. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d a s t o t h e a g r e e d f a c t s . moved f o r summary judgment i n h e r f a v o r . Harbeck The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d p a r t i a l summary judgment f o r Harbeck. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o r e n d e r summary judgment f o r t h e opposing p a r t i e s . Mont. , I n Hereford v . H e r e f o r d (1979) , 598 P.2d 600, 602, 36 St.Rep. 1454, 1.456, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The i n v o c a t i o n of t h e power of a c o u r t t o r e n d e r summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e moving p a r t y g i v e s t h e c o u r t power t o r e n d e r summary judgment f o r h i s a d v e r s a r y provided t h e c a s e warrants t h a t r e s u l t . However, t h e c o u r t must be v e r y c a r e f u l t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l movant had a f u l l and f a i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o meet t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h e o t h e r p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law." W e f i n d t h a t p l a i n t i f f Harbeck d i d have a f u l l and f a i r opportunity t o m e e t the s t a t e d proposition. Harbeck' s motion was e x t e n s i v e l y b r i e f e d by a l l p a r t i e s . of d e f e n d a n t s , t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w , In the brief t h e c o u r t was s p e c i f i c a l l y asked t o r e n d e r summary judgment f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , based upon t h e grounds d i s c u s s e d h e r e i n . Harbeck had a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e p l y t o d e f e n d a n t s ' b r i e f s and t h e arguments therein. I n addition, a l l f a c t s material t o the action w e r e s t i p u l a t e d t o by Harbeck i n t h e a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e l i e d . A l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of H e r e f o r d a r e met h e r e . A c o n t r a c t must r e c e i v e such a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a s w i l l make i t o p e r a t i v e and c a p a b l e of b e i n g c a r r i e d i n t o e f f e c t , i f i t c a n be done w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , under former s e c t i o n 13-709, s e c t i o n 28-3-201, R.C.M., 1947, now A c o n t r a c t must be i n t e r p r e t e d s o a s MCA. t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e mutual i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s a s i t e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e of c o n t r a c t i n g . R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 28-3-301, governs i n t e n t i o n . s e c t i o n 28-3-303, Former s e c t i o n 13-702, The w r i t i n g i t s e l f MCA. Former s e c t i o n 13-705, R.C.M., 1947, now Where t h e c o n t r a c t i s c l e a r and MCA. e x p l i c i t i n i t s t e r m s , w e must l o o k t o i t s language a l o n e t o f i n d t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s . R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n 28-3-401, Former s e c t i o n 13-704, MCA; Batey Land & Live- s t o c k Co. v . Nixon ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 99, 106, 560 P.2d 1334, 1337. Frank v. B u t t e 48 Mont. 83, 89-90, & Boulder Mining & Lumber Co. 135 P. 904, 905. (1913)r W e h o l d t h a t t h e words " e n t i t l e d t o remain i n p o s s e s s i o n thereof, rent-free, f o r t h e rest of h e r l i f e " a r e c l e a r and unambiguous. P l a i n l y , t h e y d i s c l o s e t h e i n t e n t i o n t o g i v e t o t h e mother a l i f e e s t a t e i n t h e p r o p e r t y . The b a l a n c e of t h e 1974 c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s c l e a r l y show a n i n t e n t i o n t o c r e a t e such a l i f e e s t a t e by p r o v i d i n g a s t o a l l of t h e d e t a i l s of such e s t a t e , i n c l u d i n g t h e m a t t e r of r e p a i r s , r e p l a c e m e n t , t a x a t i o n , u t i l i t i e s and o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s . The c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n t o g r a n t a l i f e e s t a t e t o t h e mother a r e c l e a r l y expressed i n the c o n t r a c t . A.L.R. See a n n o t a t i o n , 4 5 2d 699. Harbeck a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n i s v o i d ,'c c/ a c c o r d i n g f o former s e c t i o n 13-4435, R.C.M., 28-2-603, MCA, 1947, now s e c t i o n b e c a u s e performance i s wholly i m p o s s i b l e . Harbeck c l a i m s t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t h e mother c a n n o t r e s e r v e a l i f e e s t a t e t o h e r s e l f when t h e t i t l e i s a c t u a l l y a l r e a d y h e l d by t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n law. The 1974 c o n t r a c t answers t h i s argument. It clearly i n d i c a t e s t h e a g r e e d i n t e n t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e t i t l e holders, t h e son and daughter-in-law, t h a t t h e mother be e n t i t l e d t o remain i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y , r e n t - f r e e f o r t h e r e s t of h e r l i f e . A r e s e r v a t i o n need n o t be i m p l i e d on t h e p a r t of t h e mother. T h i s C o u r t p r o p e r l y may e n f o r c e t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s which s o c l e a r l y s e t f o r t h t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s . P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e 1974 c o n t r a c t , payment of t h e e n t i r e c o n t r a c t b a l a n c e was made by t h e son and daughter-in-law t o t h e m o t h e r , i n exchange f o r which t h e mother d e l i v e r e d a w a r r a n t y deed. Such deed d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a s p e c i f i c r e s e r v a t i o n of l i f e e s t a t e . The c o n t r a c t f o r deed between t h e mother and son and daughter-in-law and t h e l i f e e s t a t e c o n t r a c t e d f o r t h e r e i n , a r e e f f e c t i v e and e n f o r c e a b l e a s a g a i n s t t h e p a r t i e s and a l s o a g a i n s t s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r s who have n o t i c e of t h e c o n t r a c t . Former s e c t i o n 73-205, 70-21-102, MCA. the l i f e estate. 1947, now s e c t i o n R.C.M., Harbeck a r g u e s t h a t s h e had no n o t i c e of Lucas, t h e d u l y a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t f o r Harbeck, a t r a i n e d r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t , a c t e d f o r h e r throughout the transaction. A s previously described, Lucas r e a d t h e c o n t r a c t t w i c e and a l s o d i s c u s s e d t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e l i f e e s t a t e w i t h t h e mother and w i t h t h e s o n and d a u g h t e r in-law. The r e s u l t i s t h a t Harbeck, t h r o u g h h e r a g e n t , had a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e l i f e e s t a t e g r a n t e d therein. 1-1-217, Former s e c t i o n 19-105, R.C.M., 1947, now s e c t i o n MCA. Harbeck a r g u e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h s h e may have s e e n and r e a d t h e c o n t r a c t , s h e misunderstood t h e meaning of t h e l i f e e s t a t e p r o v i s i o n s and was m i s a d v i s e d a s t o t h e e f f e c t . A p p a r e n t l y Harbeck b e l i e v e s such a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n shows a l a c k of knowledge o r n o t i c e . and unambiguous. The c o n t r a c t i s c l e a r , e x p l i c i t Any m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g on t h e p a r t of Harbeck a s t o l e g a l e f f e c t cannot a s s i s t her. 4 0 Mont. 552, 565, 107 P. Q u i r k v . Rich ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 821, 826. Harbeck a r g u e s t h a t t h e mother and son and d a u g h t e r - i n law s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g t h e l i f e e s t a t e , b e c a u s e t h e y a c t e d a t a l l t i m e s a s i f t h e mother was a t e n a n t , prompting Harbeck t o r e l y t h e r e o n t o h e r d e t r i m e n t . Harbeck c i t e s t h e r e n t - b a c k p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t between Harbeck and t h e son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w , and a l s o t h e m o t h e r ' s n o t b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t a x e s , u t i l i t i e s and maintenance expenses. Harbeck a r g u e s t h a t such a c t i o n s a r e more i n k e e p i n g w i t h a tenancy r a t h e r t h a n w i t h a l i f e e s t a t e . Whether o r n o t t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l w i l l a p p l y t o b a r t h e mother and son and d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w from a s s e r t i n g t h e mother's claim t o a l i f e e s t a t e i s dependent upon t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of t h e c a s e . Lindblom v . Employers' L i a b i l i t y Assur. C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 88 Mont. 488, 494' P. 1007, 1009. 295 The g e n e r a l e l e m e n t s which must be e s t a b l i s h e d i n o r d e r t o invoke e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l have been o f t e n s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t . One of t h e e l e m e n t s i s l a c k of knowledge and l a c k of a r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e means of knowledge a s t o t h e t r u e f a c t s on t h e p a r t of t h e p e r s o n c l a i m i n g e s t o p p e l . M a t t e r of Shaw ( 1 9 8 0 ) , St.Rep. - Mont. , 615 P.2d 9 1 0 , 914, 37 1480, 1484; I n R e Marriage of Adams ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. - 604 P.2d 332, 334, 36 St.Rep. , - 2374, 2377. Ig- noring the other elements, it is c l e a r t h a t t h i s required e l e m e n t i s n o t p r e s e n t under t h e f a c t s . The 1974 c o n t r a c t was r e a d and s t u d i e d by Lucas, t h e a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t f o r The c o n t r a c t language i s c l e a r and unambiguous a s Harbeck. t o the mother's l i f e e s t a t e . The c o n t r a c t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e mother i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l u t i l i t y and maintenance e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d because of h e r u s e of t h e n o r t h u n i t of t h e d u p l e x . P l a i n l y , Harbeck h a s f a i l e d i n p r o v i n g a n e l e m e n t e s s e n t i a l t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l . W e r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g p a r t i a l summary judgment t o Harbeck. W e h o l d t h a t summary judgment s h a l l b e g r a n t e d t o t h e mother and son and daughter-in-law. W e remand t h e c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o accomplish t h e following: 1. E x e c u t i o n and d e l i v e r y of a deed from t h e son and daughter-in-law t o t h e mother g r a n t i n g a l i f e e s t a t e a s r e q u i r e d under t h e 1974 c o n t r a c t . 2. Reformation of the deed from the son and daughter- in-law to Harbeck in order to provide that such deed is subject to the life estate from the mother to the son and daughter-in-law. We concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.