BERNICE MARIE TUCKER AND FOY C. WISE, APPELLANTS,
v.
OREE SANSOM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed rescission of a deed but modified the damages award, holding that the grantor cannot recover both net rental income and substitute housing costs because he could not have both rented the property and occupied it simultaneously.
A grantor seeking rescission of a deed cannot recover both the net rental income collected by the grantees and the cost of substitute housing, as these damages are duplicative and mutually exclusive.
[1] A grantor rescinding a deed cannot recover both net rental income collected by the grantees and substitute housing costs, as these remedies are mutually exclusive and dup…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA grantor and his wife executed a deed to their marital home to the grantor's step-children; after the wife died and the grantor moved, the grantees t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duplicative Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, as grantor, joined by his wife, executed a deed to their marital home to appellee’s step-children (appellants) as grantees. The wife died. The grantor moved to other housing. The grantees took possession and rented the property. The grantor brought this action to rescind and cancel his deed on various grounds and for mesne profits. The trial court can-celled the deed and awarded the grantor $1,478.80 as costs and $9,553.66 as damages. The damages were calculated based on findings that the grantees collected rent of $7,460 and reasonably expended $6,356.34 for maintenance (for a difference, or net profit, of $1,103.66) and that the grantor was entitled to recover $8,450 paid for the cost of substitute housing while he was not in possession. The trial court added the $1,103.66 to the $8,450 and entered a money judgment against the grantees for the total damages of $9,553.66. The grantees appeal.
We find there is substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings of fact supporting the rescission of the deed.
The grantor was not entitled to recover the net rentals plus his cost of substitute housing because if the grantor, rather than the grantees, had possession, the grantor could not have both rented the property and occupied it as his home. The award of damages is duplicative and we hereby modify the judgment to reduce it to the sum of $1,103.66 plus $1,478.80 for a total of $2,582.46.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur.