Craddock v. Brinkley, 92-CA-00552-SCT

Decision Date28 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. 92-CA-00552-SCT,92-CA-00552-SCT
Citation671 So.2d 662
PartiesGeorge H. CRADDOCK, Sr. v. William J. BRINKLEY, III.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Appeal No. 11015 from Judgment dated October 30, 1991; James Lamar Roberts Jr., Ruling Judge, Tishomingo County Chancery Court.

Harold S. Jackson, Iuka, for Appellant.

Donald Ray Downs, Corinth, for Appellee.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and BANKS and McRAE, JJ.

McRAE, Justice, for the Court:

George H. Craddock, Sr. filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Tishomingo County on July 3, 1989 against William J. Brinkley, III [hereinafter Brinkley] asking the court to order reformation of a scrivener's error in a legal description of property in a deed of trust given to Craddock by the defendant's father, W.J. Brinkley [hereinafter W.J.], on December 2, 1974. Brinkley replied that the subject property was homestead property, and requested the court to set aside the November 30, 1981 foreclosure of the property for failure of his mother, Flora Lee Brinkley, to sign the deed of trust. Because the chancellor was correct in declaring the conveyance void due to Flora Lee's failure to sign the deed of trust, we affirm the October 30, 1991 decree of the chancery court canceling all clouds on the title in favor of Brinkley who received his interest in the property through descent and distribution.

I.

The facts revealed that Craddock made a series of loans to his brother-in-law, W.J. Brinkley, in the early 1970's for the purpose of developing property in Iuka, Mississippi. W.J. gave a deed of trust to Craddock on December 2, 1974 on property he referred to as the "Pinecrest Property" as security for the loans which amounted to $20,000 at that time. Tax receipts indicated that the size of the parcel was approximately 45 acres. Craddock testified that W.J. planned to develop the property into a residential subdivision called Pinecrest. The legal description in the 1974 deed of trust stated that the property ran "south parallel with range line 107 2/3 rods." A prior deed of trust from W.J. to Craddock securing another loan gave the same description. However, the legal description of the property in the original warranty deed which W.J. received when he purchased the property in 1960 indicated that the property ran "south parallel with range line 170 2/3 rods."

Craddock continued to advance W.J. money. This was evidenced by a $36,500 promissory note given to Craddock by W.J. which was signed by W.J. and his wife, Flora Lee, on September 1, 1975. The promissory note indicated that it was also secured by the deed of trust W.J. had executed and given to Craddock on December 2, 1974.

Craddock assigned the indebtedness to the Banco Continental de Panama [hereinafter Bank of Panama] on July 29, 1981 in order to enhance his line of credit with the bank. After the Bank of Panama failed to receive payment on the debt, they appointed a substitute trustee and foreclosed on the property receiving a substitute trustee's deed on November 30, 1981.

The Bank of Panama then conveyed the property by way of warranty deed back to Craddock on January 1, 1981. The property has been in Craddock's possession ever since. The legal description of the property in all documents following the 1974 deed of trust have continued to provide that the property runs "south parallel with range line 107 2/3 rods."

Craddock kept the property bush-hogged and paid the property taxes every year after gaining possession of the land. He cut some of the timber on the property in 1985. Brinkley objected some two years later, but maintained that he did so as soon as he learned that the timber had been cut. The property was eventually surveyed and found to be too small to contain the Pinecrest subdivision W.J. had proposed. However, it was possible to plat the description provided in the deed of trust.

Craddock initiated a suit to have the instrument reformed to reflect the entire Pinecrest property. Nothing in the deed of trust, however, indicated that the land securing the loan was called Pinecrest. Craddock testified that all of the instruments beginning with the 1974 deed of trust should have read "170 2/3 rods" instead of "107 2/3 rods."

Brinkley maintained that when his father, W.J., gave a deed of trust to Craddock on the property in issue, the property constituted part of the 145 contiguous acre homestead of his father and mother. The 1974-75 homestead declarations for his parents showed that the subject property was part of their homestead. Brinkley obtained his interest in this land by descent and distribution. W.J. died intestate on September 13, 1978 leaving as heirs in law his wife, Flora Lee, and two sons, one of which is Brinkley. Brinkley's brother conveyed his interest in the property to his mother, Flora Lee, on January 3, 1980. By instruments dated August 12, 1988 and August 1, 1989, Flora Lee conveyed all of her interest in the subject property to Brinkley.

II.

Through the use of parol evidence, the chancellor concluded that there was an error in the 1974 deed of trust, and that it should have been reformed to read, "south parallel with range line 170 2/3 rods," had it been a valid document. However, the December 2, 1974 deed was declared null and void, and all subsequent documents incident to the foreclosure were set aside because Flora Lee Brinkley failed to execute the deed of trust on the property which constituted the homestead of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Ramsey
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • October 30, 2009
    ...(Miss.1987). The validity of the instrument is determined by the circumstances existing at the time of its execution. Craddock v. Brinkley, 671 So.2d 662, 665 (Miss.1996)(citing Hughes, 46 So.2d at 588). Furthermore, no subsequent action on the part of the non-joining spouse can cure the in......
  • Avakian v. Citibank N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-00139-SA-DAS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • January 30, 2014
    ...Further, "[t]he validity of [a] deed of trust is judged by the circumstances existing at the time of its execution." Craddock v. Brinkley, 671 So. 2d 662, 665 (Miss. 1996) (citing Hughes v. Hahn, 46 So. 2d 587, 589 (Miss. 1951)). "Subsequent actions by the spouse who failed to join in the e......
  • Gibson v. Shoemake
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 2019
    ...(Miss. 1987) ). We determine the validity of the instrument based upon the circumstances surrounding its execution. Craddock v. Brinkley , 671 So. 2d 662, 665 (Miss. 1996). Also, a spouse cannot waive any requirement of the statute, and no subsequent action may cure its invalidity. In re Ra......
  • Thurman v. Thurman, 1999-CA-00963-COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2000
    ...we affirm the chancery court in holding the deed of trust invalid. Miss.Code Ann. § 89-1-29 (1972). See also Craddock v. Brinkley, 671 So.2d 662, 665 (Miss.1996). ¶ 7. The award of attorney fees in a domestic relations case is within the discretion of the chancellor. Varner v. Varner, 666 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT