Ex parte Alexander
Decision Date | 30 March 2001 |
Citation | 806 So.2d 1222 |
Parties | Ex parte Ray ALEXANDER. (Re Ray Alexander v. Bertha Maurine Wade). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Carla M. Handy, Gadsden, for petitioner.
Dianna K. McCay, Legal Services Corp. of Alabama, Inc., Gadsden, for respondent.
On March 7, 1977, J.L. Wade and Bertha Maurine Wade deeded approximately 65½ acres of land in Etowah County to their daughter Betty Wade Alexander and her husband Ray Alexander. The Wades reserved a life estate in the real property. The consideration was recited as "TEN AND NO/100—DOLLARS and love and affection to us paid by the party of the second part," the grantees. Thereafter, one of the grantors, J.L. Wade, and one of the grantees, Betty Wade Alexander, died.
Bertha Maurine Wade, the surviving grantor, sued Ray Alexander, the surviving grantee, to revoke the deed under § 8-9-12, Ala.Code 1975, which provides:
"Any conveyance of realty wherein a material part of the consideration is the agreement of the grantee to support the grantor during life is void at the option of the grantor, except as to bona fide purchasers for value, lienees, and mortgagees without notice, if, during the life of the grantor, he takes proceedings to annul such conveyance." (Emphasis added.)
After ore tenus proceedings, the trial court annulled the deed and divested Ray Alexander of any interest in the property. The trial court found and held:
"The evidence is clear, satisfactory and convincing that a material part of the consideration of the deed was the agreement of the defendant, grantee to support the grantors during their lives and, therefore, said conveyance is voidable at the option of a grantor." (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Civil Appeals 1) affirmed in part upon a holding that the trial court correctly voided Mrs. Wade's conveyance of her interest in the land; 2) reversed in part upon a holding that the trial court erroneously voided J.L. Wade's conveyance of his interest "under § 8-9-12" because the proceedings were not initiated during his lifetime; and 3) remanded to the trial court with instructions to decide whether J.L. Wade's conveyance could properly be voided on the theory of failure of consideration. The rationale of the Court of Civil Appeals for its instructions on remand is:
Alexander v. Wade, 806 So.2d 1215, 1221-22 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (emphasis in original omitted and emphasis added).
Ray Alexander petitioned this Court for certiorari review of the decision by the Court of Civil Appeals. We granted the writ to determine the propriety of the instructions by the Court of Civil Appeals to the trial court for it to decide whether the conveyance of J.L. Wade's interest should be voided on the theory of failure of consideration as distinguished from the theory of the grantor's option under § 8-9-12. Mrs. Wade's pleadings to annul the conveyance confine her theory to the grantor's option under § 8-9-12. She does not plead an equitable theory of failure of consideration. The plain text of the statute itself invalidates the decision of the trial court to void the conveyance of J.L. Wade's interest, in that the statute requires the "proceedings to annul such conveyance" to be taken "during the life of the grantor." The enactment of this statute creating an action to annul a conveyance supported by the consideration of the grantee's promise to support the grantor for life has superseded other theories for voiding such a conveyance to redress the grantor's dissatisfaction with the consideration:
McAdory, 260 Ala. at 550, 71 So.2d at 529 (emphasis added). Thus, we have held that, in proceedings to annul a deed under § 8-9-12, Ala.Code 1975, it is immaterial whether the promise to support was actually fulfilled by the grantee. See, e.g., Vaughn v. Carter, 488 So.2d 1348 (Ala. 1986)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodgers v. Rodgers
...question whether Max promised to support Louie because "`it is immaterial whether that promise has been kept or not.'" Ex parte Alexander, 806 So.2d 1222, 1225 (Ala.2001) (quoting McAdory v. Jones, 260 Ala. 547, 550, 71 So.2d 526, 529 (1954)) (emphasis 3. For the purposes of this appeal, we......
-
Dunn v. Williams
...for the conveyance but that the alleged promise had not been honored. Moreover, as our supreme court noted in Ex parte Alexander, 806 So.2d 1222, 1225 (Ala.2001), the enactment of § 8-9-12 "has superseded other theories for voiding ... a conveyance to redress the grantor's dissatisfaction w......
-
Martin v. Martin
...address at trial their understanding of Myrna's purpose and motivation in conveying the property to Robert and Tessa. In Ex parte Alexander, 806 So.2d 1222 (Ala.2001), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed § 8-9-12 and its application. The supreme court "`In enacting that law[, Title 20, § 15......
-
Alexander v. Wade
...of this court has been affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Ex parte Alexander, 806 So.2d 1222 (Ala.2001). In its opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed that portion of our judgment "affirm[ing] the judgment of the trial court insofar a......