Self v. Petty
| Citation | 469 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | R.L. SELF v. Jim PETTY and Maggie Petty. 83-1032. |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1985 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Carole W. Delchamps, Mobile, for appellant.
B.F. Stokes, III and G.B. McAtee, Mobile, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. We reverse.
The facts of this case are as follows:
Appellees, Jim and Maggie Petty, transferred certain property by warranty deed to appellant R.L. Self on May 14, 1973. The full description of the property appears below:
That certain lot or parcel of land commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 4 South, Range 3 West; thence running South 419 feet to a point; thence West 1,314 feet to a point; thence North 419 feet to a point; thence East 1,314 feet to the place of beginning, containing 12 acres, more or less.
According to the deed, the Pettys warranted that Self was seized of an indefeasible estate in fee simple in the property, and that the property was free from any encumbrances. The Pettys also warranted in the document that they would forever defend the title to the property against the lawful claims of all persons. Neither Self nor the Pettys surveyed the property immediately prior to transfer. However, Self was shown the four corners of the property by the Pettys.
On March 18, 1977, a .66-acre portion of this property was awarded to an adjoining landowner by court decree. Self was not made a party to, or given any notice of, this action. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Self discovered that the .66-acre portion had been taken from him until about five years later.
In 1982, Self attempted to sell the entire twelve acres of property he received from the Pettys. It was through his real estate agent that Self first learned of the cloud on his title to the land. A survey was made on September 20, 1982, and it revealed that part of the property (.66-acre) had indeed been taken from appellant by judicial decree. Self then notified the Pettys of the loss, but the Pettys refused to compensate him for his loss of a portion of the property.
Self filed suit on August 3, 1983. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Pettys and Self subsequently appealed.
Self raises two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in its ruling that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its ruling that the "more or less" language in the warranty deed controlled over a metes and bounds description in the deed.
Although the trial court did not set forth its reasons for granting the Pettys' motion for summary judgment, it must have agreed with the Pettys' arguments concerning one or more of the above issues. We hold that the court erred when it ruled in favor of the Pettys. Therefore, for the reasons stated below, the court's judgment is due to be reversed.
The Pettys argue that, if there was a breach of warranty, it occurred at the time the deed was executed and delivered on May 14, 1973. They point out that the statute of limitations pertaining to the recovery of real property in Alabama is § 6-2-33, Code 1975, which allows ten years within which to file suit after the accrual of the claim. The Pettys say that the statute began to run in May 1973, and that a suit filed in August 1983 was clearly barred.
The law in Alabama with regard to warranties to defend title against all lawful claims was recently stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harmon v. Ingram
...the quantity of acreage conveyed are construed as merely cumulative to more definite descriptions such as metes and bounds. Self v. Petty, 469 So.2d 568 (Ala.1985); Hill v. Johnson, 214 Ala. 194, 106 So. 814 (1925). However, in order to ascertain the intent of the grantor when more definite......
-
Brackett v. Cent. Bank
...Co., 259 Ala. 152, 161, 66 So. 2d 151, 157 (1953)." Lacks v. Stribling, 406 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). In Self v. Petty, 469 So. 2d 568, 570 (Ala. 1985), our supreme court quoted Lacks in support of that court's conclusion that the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to re......
-
Brackett v. Cent. Bank
...259 Ala. 152, 161, 66 So. 2d 151, 157 (1953)."Page 16 Lacks v. Stribling, 406 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981). In Self v. Petty, 469 So. 2d 568, 570 (Ala. 1985), our supreme court quoted Lacks in support of that court's conclusion that the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to ......
-
Steele v. McRaney
...Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Owen, 452 So.2d at 485, that runs with the land and is enforceable against a remote grantor, see Self v. Petty, 469 So.2d 568 (Ala.1985). See generally Evans, Alabama Property Rights § 4.4(b)(iv). The statute of limitations with respect to an action for breach of th......