Daniels v. Johnson
Decision Date | 13 January 1989 |
Citation | 539 So.2d 259 |
Parties | Ada Vernell DANIELS v. Latrannah J. JOHNSON, et al. 88-177. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John L. Jernigan III, of Stokes, Jernigan and Stokes, Brewton, for appellant.
James E. Hart, Jr., Brewton, for appellees.
E.L. Johnson, the stepfather of the plaintiff, Ada Vernell Daniels, executed a deed of gift to Ms. Daniels of the interest that Mr. Johnson had inherited from his sister Bernice Wessner, in certain real property in Escambia County, Alabama. The property was described by governmental subdivisions (being a portion of Section 14, Township 1 North, Range 8 East) and by metes and bounds. Four separate parcels were specifically excluded by metes and bounds descriptions, from the general governmental subdivision descriptions. Ms. Daniels brought suit to reform the legal description in the deed from Mr. Johnson to Ms. Daniels to include two five-acre tracts that were specifically excluded in the deed to Ms. Daniels. There is evidence that Mr. Johnson inherited an interest in Sections 12, 13, and 14, Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Escambia County, Alabama, from the estate of his sister Ms. Wessner. However, the mistake alleged in the complaint was the failure of the scrivener to include the two five-acre tracts in Section 14, that were specifically described in the complaint, within the description of the property conveyed to Ms. Daniels by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson had died before this suit was filed.
The defendants are the children of Mr. Johnson, who inherited the disputed property as his heirs at law.
The parties filed motions for summary judgments, with supporting affidavits, exhibits, and the deposition of the scrivener of the deed that Ms. Daniels seeks to reform. The parties also stipulated that the case was presented to the trial court for a determination on the merits. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment; denied Ms. Daniels's motion for summary judgment; refused to reform the deed; and held that the defendants, as heirs at law of Mr. Johnson, were the owners of the two five-acre tracts excluded from the description in the deed to Ms. Daniels. Ms. Daniels appeals.
Justice Steagall, writing for a division of this Court in Powell v. Evans, 496 So.2d 723, 725 (Ala.1986), wrote:
Even so, there is a presumption arising from the deed itself and supporting it as the true agreement. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Phifer, 432 So.2d 1241 (Ala.1983); Marengo Abstract Co. v. Hooper & Co., 174 Ala. 497, 56 So. 580 (1911); 66 Am.Jur.2d Reformation of Instruments, § 117 at 643 (1973). Therefore, the burden is on Ms. Daniels, who is seeking the reformation, to prove her entitlement to reformation of the deed by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Phifer, supra; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Engel Realty Co., 241 Ala. 236, 2 So.2d 425 (1941).
This Court in Hammer v. Lange, 174 Ala. 337, 339-40, 56 So. 573 (1911), wrote:
There is no allegation or proof of any fraud or other inequitable conduct on the part of Mr. Johnson, so this deed of gift can be reformed only if there was a mutual mistake.
Without a determination as to the legality of some of this evidence, the following is all of the evidence relating to the agreement entered into by Mr. Johnson and Ms. Daniels.
Ms. Daniels's affidavit:
Letter from Exxon Company U.S.A. (attached to Ms. Daniels's affidavit):
Letter from E.L. Johnson dated January 8, 1980 (attached to Ms. Daniels's affidavit):
Deposition of Douglas P. Cushing, scrivener of the deed sought to be reformed:
Cushing was not certain how he obtained the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fadalla v. Fadalla
...parties have entered into an agreement, but the deed does not express what the parties intended under the agreement. Daniels v. Johnson, 539 So.2d 259, 260 (Ala.1989). In determining whether a mutual mistake exists, "[t]he initial factual question is, of course, what the parties intended th......
-
Regions Bank v. Dean, No. 2070441 (Ala. Civ. App. 2/6/2009)
...parties have entered into an agreement, but the deed does not express what the parties intended under the agreement. Daniels v. Johnson, 539 So. 2d 259, 260 (Ala. 1989). In determining whether a mutual mistake exists, `[t]he initial factual question is, of course, what the parties intended ......
-
Regions Bank v. Dean
...parties have entered into an agreement, but the deed does not express what the parties intended under the agreement. Daniels v. Johnson, 539 So.2d 259, 260 (Ala. 1989). In determining whether a mutual mistake exists, `the initial factual question is, of course, what the parties intended the......
-
Jayroe v. Hall
...may be made to conform to the agreement or transaction entered into, according to the intention of the parties." Daniels v. Johnson, 539 So.2d 259, 260 (Ala.1989). Morris Jayroe made no allegation and offered no proof of either fraud or inequitable conduct, so his deed can be reformed only ......