Hellams v. Harnist
| Decision Date | 15 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0366,0366 |
| Citation | 325 S.E.2d 569,284 S.C. 256 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Nancy J.C. HELLAMS, Respondent, v. Paul L. HARNIST and Lillian May Harnist, Appellants. . Heard |
Donald B. Hocker, Laurens, for appellants.
Paul E. Gault, Jr., Fountain Inn, for respondent.
Nancy J.C. Hellams (Mrs. Hellams) brought this action against Paul L. Harnist (Mr. Harnist) and Lillian May Harnist (Mrs. Harnist) for the reformation of a deed of Mrs. Hellams to Mr. and Mrs. Harnist. The appealed order reformed the deed on the grounds that there had been a mutual mistake in the drafting of the description of the deed. We disagree and reverse.
On June 27, 1980, Mrs. Hellams executed and delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Harnist a deed in which the conveyed property was described as follows:
All that lot, piece or parcel of land lying, being and situate in the County of Laurens, State of South Carolina being bounded on the North by a paved street a distance of 88 feet more or less on the East by a store building presently occupied by H. Murk Gault, a distance of 23 feet more or less, on the North again by Gault dry cleaing [sic] establishment building (being a party wall) a distance of 80 feet more or less, on the East again by Main Street of the Town of Gray Court, a distance of 80 feet more or less on the South by lot heretofore conveyed to Charles Hellams, a distance of 166 feet more or less and on the West by telephone company lot, a distance of 103 feet more or less.
Notwithstanding the dimensions stated above it is the intent and purpose of this deed to convey to the grantees herein all of the lands mentioned and described in deed from O.L. Boyd to Mrs. Ralph A. Hellams recorded the 1st of October, 1948 in Deed Book 94 at Page 120 except that portion thereof which was heretofore conveyed by the grantor herein to her son Charles Hellams. The lot hereby conveyed has situate thereon a brick building heretofore known as Gray Court Motor Company.
Mrs. Hellams alleges and the trial court impliedly found that the attorney who drew the deed mistakenly included the second paragraph of the description and that the parties to the transaction did not intend for the deed to convey all of Mrs. Hellams property fronting on Main Street.
The dispute of the case is whether the parties intended the lot conveyed to front on Main Street 80 feet or 115.4 feet. The first paragraph is ambiguous as to the Main Street frontage in that it gives a frontage of 80 feet more or less but it reads that the subject lot is bounded on the south "by lot heretofore conveyed to Charles Hellams," which lot is 115.4 feet from the opposite boundary on Main Street. A sketch of the land involved is attached to this decision; the reader is requested to examine this sketch. The lot shown on the sketch as fronting on Main Street 35.4 feet is the disputed land.
The testimony of the parties to this action is conflicting. Mrs. Hellams testified she only intended to convey about 80 feet on Main Street. Mr. Harnist testified that he understood he was buying the entire Main Street frontage from the Gault lot to the Charles Hellams line. All agree that the negotiations leading to the conveyance were between Mrs. Hellams' husband, Ralph Hellams, admittedly Mrs. Hellams' authorized agent, and Mr. Harnist. An attempt was made by these two to measure the frontage but, according to Mr. Harnist's testimony, the property line of the Charles Hellams lot was not known to Ralph Hellams.
Mrs. Hellams acknowledged that the deed was read to her before execution. She is a literate woman who had prior experience in real estate transactions; however she was in her late seventies and her eyesight was bad. Her son Charles and her husband were present when the deed was signed. Mrs. Hellams' husband read the deed to her before she signed it.
The deed was prepared by attorney Thomas A. Babb, a relative of Mrs. Hellams. Mr. Babb testified that the parties indicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNair v. Rainsford
...to examine the law in this state in regard to scriveners. This Court referred to a lawyer as a "scrivener" in Hellams v. Harnist, 284 S.C. 256, 325 S.E.2d 569 (Ct.App. 1985). In Hellams, attorney Thomas A. Babb prepared a deed conveying certain property from Hellams to the Harnists. Hellams......
-
Flair Broadcasting Corp. v. Powers
...care in its preparation, it will be presumed that its words were employed deliberately and with intention." Hellams v. Harnist, 284 S.C. 256, 325 S.E.2d 569, 571 (Ct.App.1985) (citing McPherson v. J.E. Sirrine & Co., 206 S.C. 183, 33 S.E.2d 501, 509-10 On the question of whether a term is a......
-
Crewe v. Blackmon
... ... Aiken Petroleum Co. v. National Petroleum Underwriters, 207 S.C. 236, 36 S.E.2d 380 (1946); see Hellams" v ... Harnist, 284 S.C. 256, 325 S.E.2d 569 (Ct.App.1985) (negligence is no bar to an action to reform a contract) ... [289 S.C. 235] III ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Bogan v. Bogan, 1306
...evidences care in its preparation, it will be presumed its words were employed deliberately and with intention. Hellams v. Harnist, 284 S.C. 256, 325 S.E.2d 569 (Ct.App.1985); see Terry Cove North, Inc. v. Balwin County Sewer Auth., Inc., 480 So.2d 1171 "The term 'gross income' does not car......