Harrison v. Roberts


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01663-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01663-SCT ; 2006-CA-01663-COA ; 2006-CT-01663-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-22-2008
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Amount of acreage in deed
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-13-2006
Appealed from: WEBSTER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Robert L. Lancaster
Disposition: CHANCELLOR FOUND NO MUTUAL MISTAKE IN THE LAND DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN DEED TO REAL PROPERTY.
Case Number: 05-178

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JOHN R. HARRISON AND JAMES A. MIMS, JR.




ARNOLD F. GWIN



 

Appellee: BOBBY JOE ROBERTS E. SCOTT VERHINE  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Real property - Amount of acreage in deed

Summary of the Facts: John Harrison and Bobby Joe Roberts owned adjoining properties. Roberts, who was Harrison’s second cousin, approached Harrison about buying his 40-acre tract. Harrison declined to sell the entire tract, but agreed to sell that portion of his property that ended at the southern right-of-way of a public road. The parties believed that this tract of land contained 30 acres. Therefore, they agreed upon a sales price of $15,000, based on $500 per acre. Harrison executed a warranty deed that conveyed to Roberts that portion of his property which stopped at the southern right-of-way of a public road. A subsequent survey revealed that the tract of land described in the deed to Roberts actually contained 35.46 acres. Two years later, Harrison executed a deed in an attempt to convey the remaining 10 acres of his 40 acre tract, to James A. Mims, Jr. When Mims sought to have this deed recorded, he discovered that Harrison had actually conveyed 35.46 acres to Roberts so that the deed to him only conveyed 4.54 acres. Upon discovering the discrepancy, Harrison and Mims met with the attorney who had prepared the deed, who assured Harrison and Mims that he would correct the problem. Without Roberts’ knowledge, Harrison executed and recorded a “Corrected Warranty Deed” to Roberts. This deed changed the description of the property being conveyed to Roberts so that it would, in fact, be approximately 30 acres. Harrison also executed and recorded a “ Corrected Warranty Deed” to Mims. When Roberts saw a woman cutting hay on his property, Mims informed Roberts that corrected deeds had been executed and recorded. Roberts filed an action to reform the deeds, confirm title, and remove cloud from title. The chancellor granted the requested relief. Harrison and Mims appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The chancellor’s opinion provided a very detailed review of the evidence. Among those findings, the chancellor noted that it was Harrison’s and Roberts’s original intent to contract for the sale of 30 acres at a price of $15,000 was based upon their agreement to provide for the purchase of that portion of Harrison’s property that was bounded on the north by the southern right-of-way of a public road. Neither party knew the exact acreage of land to be conveyed since they each declined to get a survey. However, they agreed that the property to be sold was bounded by the southern right-of-way of a public road. Further, the deed conveying the property to Roberts contained a metes and bounds description, as well as an amount of acreage. Thus, there is substantial and credible testimony in the record that supports the chancellor’s findings. In addition, the finding is also supported by the general principle that specific boundaries control over acreage.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court