Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a judgment reforming a deed that conveyed a remainder interest to siblings as joint tenants with survivorship rather than as tenants in common. The court held that reformation based on mutual mistake required clear evidence that both grantors intended the tenancy-in-common arrangement, and the record lacked sufficient evidence of the mother's intent. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported reformation of the January 1979 deed based on mutual mistake under Alabama Code § 35-4-153.
Holdings
- Reformation was inappropriate because the parties seeking it failed to present evidence indicating that Loretta Green intended to convey the remainder interest to Virginia and Charles as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
Key quotations
“In sum, this note and the companion testimony of the attorney give no indication that the deed failed to encapsulate Loretta’s intent and, because there is likewise no evidence to that effect elsewhere in the record, the judgment of the trial court reforming the January 1979 deed must be reversed.” (219)
“However, because there is no evidence in the record indicating that Loretta intended to convey the property to Virginia and Charles as tenants in common as opposed to joint tenants with the right of survivorship when she executed the deed in January 1979, reformation of the deed pursuant to § 35-4-153 was inappropriate.” (219)
Factual background
In 1979, Elbert and Loretta Green executed a separation agreement stating that their children, Virginia McClung and Charles Green, would receive the property as tenants in common, but a deed executed the same day conveyed the remainder to them as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Charles died in 1992, and Virginia later claimed sole ownership based on the survivorship provision, while Bridget Williams claimed that she would inherit Charles's interest if the deed were reformed. The trial court reformed the deed, but the Supreme Court concluded that the record contained evidence of Elbert's intent but no sufficient evidence that Loretta intended a tenancy in common when the deed was executed.
Procedural history
Elbert Green and Bridget Williams filed an action seeking declaratory relief concerning rental income and reformation of a January 1979 deed. After Elbert died, his widow Lela Virginia was substituted as a plaintiff. Following a bench trial, the Morgan Circuit Court reformed the deed and ruled that Elbert was entitled to retain the relevant rental income. Virginia appealed only the deed-reformation ruling, and the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.