Esterholdt v. PacifiCorp
301 P.3d 1086
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Wyoming Marketable Title Act (the Act) governs root of title and marketable record title over forty-year lookback.
- PacifiCorp held an easement across the Esterholdts’ land (pole line easement) originating from a 1967 recording; Reed acted as president of a company with no land interest when signing.
- District court granted partial summary judgment validating PacifiCorp’s easement under the Act; Esterholdts challenged as arising from a wild deed.
- Court explains recording act as a race-notice regime; first to record wins if unbroken chain of title exists for forty years.
- Key definitions: root of title is the last recorded conveyance creating the claimed interest, dated at least forty years prior; marketable title extinguishes pre-root interests.
- Issue arises whether a wild deed can be a root of title under the Act and whether a wild deed is an inherent defect in the chain of title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a wild deed be the root of title under the Act? | Estherholdts: wild deed invalidates root. | PacifiCorp: wild deed can serve as root if otherwise unbroken chain exists. | Wild deed may be root of title. |
| Is a wild deed an inherent defect in the chain of title? | Inherent defects must appear on face of deed; wild deed is such a defect. | If wild deed serves as root, it cannot be an inherent defect prior to root. | Wild deed is not an inherent defect if it serves as root of title. |
Key Cases Cited
- Condos v. Trapp, 717 P.2d 827 (Wyo. 1986) (race-notice interpretation of Wyoming recording act)
- Condos v. Trapp, 739 P.2d 749 (Wyo. 1987) (clarifies subsequent related ruling)
- Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Dolenc, 86 P.3d 1287 (Wyo. 2004) (statutory interpretation guiding plain meaning)
- Mobbs v. City of Lehigh, 655 P.2d 547 (Okla. 1982) (void tax deed as root of title in some contexts)
- City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1978) (fraudulent deed in chain of title; effect on Act)
- Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 236 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1970) (wild or Maverick deeds considered in Act context)
- Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Lawndale Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 243 N.E.2d 193 (Ill. 1968) (recognizes wild deed effect within statute context)