Barnes v. Barnes, 81-179

• Decision Date: 08 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-179,81-179
• Citation: 275 Ark. 117,627 S.W.2d 552
• Parties: Cloyd H. BARNES, Appellant, v. Mary K. BARNES, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 552

627 S.W.2d 552

275 Ark. 117

Cloyd H. BARNES, Appellant, v.Mary K. BARNES, Appellee.

No. 81-179.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 8, 1982.

Walters, Davis & Cox by Bill Walters, Greenwood, for appellant.

Hardin, Jesson & Dawson by Rex M. Terry, Fort Smith, for appellee.

DUDLEY, Justice.

On September 10, 1971, Cloyd and Etta Barnes sold thirty acres to J. B. and Mary K. Barnes, their son and daughter-in-law.The conveyance was by warranty deed with no reservation by the grantors.The deed was executed, delivered and recorded on the same day.The grantees, the son and daughter-in-law, simultaneously executed an instrument styled "Sales Agreement."It sets forth the terms of payment, which have been paid-in-full, and concludes "Cloyd Barnes may have partnership use of the above described property as long as he wishes."This instrument was executed only by the son and daughter-in-law and was not recorded at the time.A little over eight years later, on December 19, 1979, the son died and Mary K. Barnes, as survivor, acquired absolute title.Eight days later, on December 27, 1979, Cloyd Barnes filed for record the sales agreement.The daughter-in-law, Mary K. Barnes, then filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Cloyd Barnes, appellant, had no interest in the property.The appellant asked that his partnership use of the property be confirmed.The issues of reformation, estoppel, or damages were not raised below.On the sole issue raised, confirmation of partnership use, the chancellor held that the warranty deed was absolute on its face and that the sales agreement was void for vagueness.We affirm.

The deed is absolute on its face.The appellant, one of the grantors, reserved no interest in the title.Ark.Stat.Ann. § 50-403(Repl.1971) provides that an estate of fee simple is presumed to be conveyed by any deed of conveyance unless that estate is expressly limited by words in the deed.Appellant urges us to examine the sales agreement and use rules of construction to interpret the deed.We decline, because we do not resort to rules of construction when a deed is clear and contains no ambiguities.Coffelt v. Decatur School District No. 17, 212 Ark. 743, 208 S.W.2d 1(1948).We apply rules of construction only when the meaning of a deed or the intention of the parties is ambiguous, uncertain or doubtful.Gibson v. Pickett, 256 Ark. 1035, 512 S.W.2d 532(1974).The sales agreement is merged into the clear deed.Duncan v. McAdams, 222 Ark. 143, 257 S.W.2d 568(1953).

Additionally, the chancellor was correct in reasoning that even if the deed had not been clear the appellant could not prevail because of the vagueness of the terms "partnership use" and "as long as he wishes."These terms, as used, are vague to the extent that they are not susceptible to being understood.A court cannot enforce a contract which it cannot understand.Indeed, there is a basic question of whether the instrument is a contract since appellant did not execute it.Aside from that question, the language used is incomprehensibly vague, not simply ambiguous in the sense it is susceptible to two or more different meanings.For example, it is impossible to determine if the word "partnership" was executed or executory and was with the other grantor, the son, the appellee daughter-in-law, some other person, or one, some or all of them.It is impossible to determine when the partnership would begin or would terminate and upon what conditions.It is impossible to know what interest a "use" creates, whether it is merely a possessory interest or is an ownership interest, whether it could be conveyed, what, if anything, the user pays and how that amount is decided.It is impossible to determine how a use is divided among users."As long as he wishes" is equally vague.It is impossible to understand whether the appellant can convey his use, or whether it is the reservation of some interest for as long as appellant is able to use the acreage, or for life.Appellant may wish his grandchildren and great-grandchildren have the use of the property and could cloud the title into perpetuity.Such vagueness is not enforceable.

The deed is clear and conveys absolute title and is not subject to...