Caruso v. Parkos
Nebraska Supreme Court
637 N.W.2d 351 (2002)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Virginia Parkos (defendant) owned a five-sevenths interest in a property. Virginia’s two daughters, Susan Caruso (plaintiff) and Carol Nattress, each held a one-seventh interest in the property. In April 1997, Carol approached Virginia about conveying Virginia’s interest to Carol and Susan. Susan would then buy out Carol’s share. On June 20, Virginia signed a deed transferring the property to Carol and Susan. On June 26, Carol deeded her interest to Susan. Both deeds were given to Virginia’s attorney, Curtis Sikyta, for recording, but he did not record them at that time. On October 27, 1997, Virginia executed a deed to her son, James Parkos, purporting to convey the same property as the June 20 deed. This October 27 deed was recorded. After this, Sikyta finally recorded the June 20 and June 26 deeds. Susan sued to quiet title to the property. At trial, James argued the property belonged to him because: (1) the June 20 deed was invalid, because it had never been delivered; (2) the June 20 deed was voidable, because it had been obtained through undue influence; and (3) James was a good faith, bona fide purchaser whose deed was valid, because the June 20 deed was not recorded before the October 27 deed was recorded. The trial court ruled in favor of Susan. James appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
