Breeden v. Tucker
| Citation | 533 So.2d 1108 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 58029,58029 |
| Parties | Helen Tucker BREEDEN and Alene Tucker Murray v. Calvin TUCKER, Rosie Tucker, Homer Tucker and Patricia Kitchens. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
A.M. Murphy, Lucedale, for appellants.
W. Vol Jones, Jr., Waynesboro, for appellees.
Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ.
This is an appeal of an August 15, 1986, judgment of the Chancery Court of George County, whereby a deed executed in favor of appellants, Helen Tucker Breeden and Alene T. Murray, was declared invalid as against an earlier deed executed in favor of their brother. We affirm.
John and Mary Magdalene Moody (Maggie) Tucker had four children: Gus, Calvin, Helen Tucker Breeden, and Alene Tucker Murray. On January 27, 1951, when John was 59 years old and Maggie was 58, they deeded their homeplace in Lucedale George County, Mississippi, consisting of approximately 30.38 acres to their eldest son, Gus, reserving unto themselves a life estate. On August 24, 1972, when John and Maggie were in their 80's, they executed a second deed to their two daughters, Helen and Alene, once again reserving a life estate. The 1972 deed was recorded on August 29, 1972. John died on August 1, 1979, at the age of 87. Maggie died on October 20, 1984, at the age of 92. Gus died two months after his mother on December 27, 1984. Gus was survived by his wife, Rosie McLain Tucker, and his two children, Homer Tucker and Patricia Tucker Kitchens. On January 10, 1985, Homer recorded the 1951 deed.
On February 26, 1985, Helen and Alene filed suit to quiet and confirm title and for damages against their brother Calvin and Gus' heirs. In their complaint Helen and Alene claimed to have been in possession of the property since 1972 and asked that the 1951 deed be cancelled. In their answer Homer and the other defendants averred that the 1951 deed was the valid deed and as affirmative defenses alleged that Helen and Alene were not and had not been in possession of the property, that the 1972 deed was procured by undue influence, and that Helen and Alene did not have a separate right to the property because they were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The defendants cross-complained seeking to have the 1972 deed cancelled. In their answer to the cross-complaint, Helen and Alene raised the affirmative defense of laches.
Hearing was held on December 12, 1985. The proof established that as of the time of the lawsuit none of John and Mary's children had taken actual possession of the property. Helen and Alene claimed that they were not aware of the 1951 deed. Calvin and Gus' widow, Rosie, claimed that Helen and Alene had known about the 1951 deed since shortly after its execution. Calvin claimed he was present in 1951 when his mother told Helen and Alene about the 1951 deed and that they responded that they did not want the land anyway. Calvin also stated that when he reminded Helen about the 1951 deed, Helen responded it was not valid because it had not been recorded. Homer stated that shortly before his father, Gus, died, he told Homer he had the 1951 deed and it was his (Gus') and his father's (John's) desire that the property be evenly divided among the four siblings. The defendants, Calvin and Gus' heirs, maintained throughout that it was their plan to follow John's wishes and evenly divide the land.
On December 13, 1985, the chancellor rendered his opinion, determining that Helen and Alene knew about the 1951 deed and, therefore, were not innocent purchasers without notice and denied the relief requested. The chancellor further ordered that the judgment should be recorded in the land deed records in George County to show the 1951 deed took precedence over and was valid against the 1972 deed. On December 16 and 17, 1985, and again on March 5, 1986, the appellants, Helen and Alene, filed a motion and an amended motion requesting that the chancellor explicitly rule on the affirmative defenses of laches and statutes of limitation (Mississippi Code Annotated, Sections 15-1-7 and 15-1-9). On August 15, 1986, the chancellor entered judgment finding the 1951 deed valid. The chancellor rejected the appellants' position that the appellees were estopped by laches or statute.
The appellants, Helen and Alene, argue that the trial court erred in rejecting their defense that the appellees had failed to act within the ten-year statutes of limitation when they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lott v. Saulters
...“a grantee of land takes the land subject to a prior unrecorded deed from his grantor of which he has actual notice.” Breeden v. Tucker, 533 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Miss.1988) (emphasis added). Brenda would be able to claim superior title to the land only if she had no knowledge of Ralph's deed a......
-
Stallings v. Bailey
...the Chancery Court's findings of ultimate fact are without a substantial grounding in the evidentiary record before us. Breeden v. Tucker, 533 So.2d 1108 (Miss.1988); Pieper v. Pontiff, 513 So.2d 591 (Miss.1987); Johnson v. Black, 469 So.2d 88 On these facts, Bailey was able to trace an unb......
-
Double J Farmlands v. Paradise Baptist
...13. Moreover, we must defer to a chancery court's findings of fact unless they are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. Breeden v. Tucker, 533 So.2d 1108 (Miss.1988). After careful review of the record, we are unable to say the chancellor's factual findings were manifestly wrong. We there......