Houlihan v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 19 January 1962
• Docket Number: No. 2937,2937
• Citation: 93 R.I. 499,177 A.2d 192
• Parties: Frederick J. HOULIHAN et ux. v. Robert E. MURPHY et al. Equity
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 192

177 A.2d 192

93 R.I. 499

Frederick J. HOULIHAN et ux. v. Robert E. MURPHY et al.

Equity No. 2937.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 19, 1962.

Abedon, Michaelson & Stanzler, Milton Stanzler, Providence, for complainants.

John P. Bourcier, Providence, for respondents.

CONDON, Chief Justice.

This is a bill in equity for the reformation of two certain deeds of real estate on the ground of mutual mistake. The cause is here on the appeal of the respondents Robert E. Murphy and Lucy P. Murphy from a decree of the superior court granting the relief prayed for against them. The other respondents did not answer to the bill, leaving the Murphys as the only contesting respondents. We shall hereinafter refer to them as the sole respondents on this appeal.

In 1950 the real estate in question was owned by Alton W. and Roby H. S. Angell, husband and wife. It consisted of lots 110, 111, 112 and 113 on the Bishop Heights plat in the town of Johnston. On lot 113 there was a house a part of which was on lot 112. On lot 111 there was another house, which was also partly on lot 112 where there was a well connected to that house. The first-mentioned house was also connected with the well sometime in 1952 or 1953 while a member of the Angell family lived there but in 1956 this connection was cut off because the well had gone dry.

On October 5, 1950 the Angells entered into a written contract to sell 'lots 110, 111 and part of 112' to Frederick J. and Amanda E. Houlihan, husband and wife. On November 29, 1950 pursuant to such contract they received from the Angells a deed which conveyed only lots 110 and 111. Without noting that it failed to refer to 'part of 112' in accordance with the contract they caused it to be recorded but they did not record the contract. They did not examine the deed when it was returned from the town clerk's office and it was not until 1959 they first learned of the omission.

On May 15, 1957 Roby S. Angell conveyed to the Murphys the other house on lot 113 and also lot 112. Before purchasing they had the title to those lots searched by a title company and were informed that title was free and clear in Mrs. Angell, but they did not have the lots surveyed to determine the location of the boundaries. Consequently they did not become aware until 1959 that the Houlihans' house and well were on part of lot 112. In that year they were apprised of that fact by a survey which they had made to ascertain the true boundaries.

The Houlihans claimed that a mistake had been made in each deed contrary to the intention of the parties and that they should be reformed to give effect to such intention, namely, that only a part of lot 112 not covered by their house and well was intended to be conveyed to the Murphys and that the other part was intended to be conveyed to them. On the other hand the Murphys contended that they had no knowledge of the sale contract between the Angells and the Houlihans when they, the Murphys, bought in 1957; that the records of land evidence gave them no notice thereof; and that therefore they were bona fide purchasers without notice of the Houlihans' equity of reformation.

On the evidence before him the trial justice rejected their contention and expressly found that they had actual knowledge before they purchased that the Houlihans' boundary extended into lot 112 to include the well and the portion of their house. He therefore held that the Houlihans were entitled to reformation of the deeds in question so as to give them part of lot 112 in accordance with the provisions of the contract. However, the Houlihans conceded that they would be satisfied with less than such full measure of relief in order to afford the Murphys continued access to their garage over an existing driveway thereto, a portion of which cut across the front part of the Houlihans' portion of lot 112.

To give effect to his holding subject to this express concession the trial justice decreed: '2. That the respondents forthwith convey to the complainants the northwestern half of Lot 112 with the exception of a triangular piece in the southeast corner thereof, beginning at a point eleven (11) feet from the southeasterly corner of Lot 111, thence running nine (9) feet southeasterly, bounding southwesterly on Elwin Avenue, thence turning a right angle and running northeasterly fifty (50) feet bounding southeasterly along the middle line of Lot 112, thence running in a straight line southwesterly to the place of beginning.'

The Murphys contend that the decree is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof and that it fails to do substantial justice between the parties. They argue that on the law and the evidence they were bona fide purchasers and that the trial justice erred in not holding that they were entitled to rely upon the title of Mrs. Angell as it appeared in the records of land evidence in the town clerk's office and to rely upon the boundaries of lot 112 as shown on the recorded plat. They also contend that the evidence that they had...