Morgan v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 15 August 1980 |
| Parties | Silas MORGAN and Mable Morgan v. Herbert ROBERTS, Alma Roberts et al. 79-762. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wallace H. Lindsey, III, of Lindsey & McPhearson, Butler, for appellant.
Wyman O. Gilmore, Grove Hill, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree denying reformation of a deed.
On December 21, 1964, Silas Morgan and his wife, Mable, conveyed forty acres of land in Choctaw County to Herbert Roberts and his wife, Alma. Following the description of the land, there are these words, "It is expressly understood that 1/4 oil, gas and other mineral interest is reserved from this conveyance." Fourteen years later, these words became the subject of a lawsuit.
In March, 1978, the Morgans filed suit to reform the deed; they alleged that they had conveyed an undivided 1/2 interest in the minerals in 1944; that they had actual knowledge that the Robertses were claiming an undivided 1/2 interest in the minerals themselves; that it was the intention of all of the parties that the Morgans reserve an undivided 1/4 interest, and if they failed to do so, it was because of a mutual mistake. They asked the Court to reform the deed to express the intention of the parties. After a hearing ore tenus, the Court denied reformation.
At the outset, it may be said that this suit for reformation appears to be unorthodox because the deed had been prepared before the grantors and the grantees ever had any discussion of the interest conveyed. The evidence shows that the Morgans had forty acres of land for sale. They offered it to Ennis Roberts. He was not interested, but his brother, Herbert Roberts, was buying land and he said he would advise Herbert of the land for sale.
The evidence is unclear as to how the Morgans and Robertses negotiated the sale. But, the Morgans and Mr. Roberts met at the Choctaw County Courthouse-the Morgans with the deed, Mr. Roberts with a check signed by his wife. When shown the deed (prepared by the probate judge), Roberts read the language concerning the reserved 1/4 mineral interest, hesitated, questioned whether his wife would accept it, but finally, he took the deed and left.
What transpired between the Morgans, the probate judge, and the judge's secretary when the deed was prepared is the crux of this appeal. The Morgans contend that they should be permitted to show by parol evidence how the deed was prepared, the conversation between them and the probate judge and the scrivener that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollis v. Cameron
...so that it would be inequitable to deny a mutual mistake.' " Sheffield v. Buxton, 547 So.2d 432, 433 (Ala.1989), quoting Morgan v. Roberts, 387 So.2d 170, 172 (Ala.1980). Where, as here, reformation is sought solely on the ground of mistake, mutuality of the mistake is essential. Pinson v. ......
-
Miller v. Davis
...on the part of one and conduct on the part of the other so that it would be inequitable to deny a mutual mistake...." Morgan v. Roberts, 387 So.2d 170, 172 (Ala.1980). The plaintiff carries the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Simpson v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, 36......
-
Talton v. Davis
...the record, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court on the authority of Pinson v. Veach, 388 So.2d 964 (Ala.1980); Morgan v. Roberts, 387 So.2d 170 (Ala.1980); Hollis v. Cameron, 572 So.2d 439 (Ala.1990), and the "ore tenus rule." King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So.2d 1023 (Ala.1987);......
-
Morgan v. Roberts
...in which the trial judge denied the Morgans' prayer for reformation of a deed. This Court affirmed that judgment in Morgan v. Roberts, 387 So.2d 170 (Ala.1980) (Morgan I ). Subsequently, the Robertses filed a bill to quiet title--the instant suit--to which the Morgans filed an answer and co......