J. E. GOLDEN AND RUTH M. GOLDEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
C. E. HAYES, 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.
Appellants challenge a judgment declaring the appellee owns all oil and mineral rights to property the appellants purchased. The court affirmed, finding that a correction deed from 1954 properly reaffirmed the appellee's original mineral rights reservation and that subsequent purchasers, including appellants, had constructive notice of the reservation.
The court held that a correction deed clearly identified as correcting prior errors need not restate all material portions without errors. Both the original and correction deeds must be construed together, and the July 12, 1954 correction deed properly reaffirmed the mineral rights reservation. Subsequent purchasers, including appellants, had constructive notice of the reservation through the recorded correction deed's reference to the original deed.
[1] A subsequent instrument clearly identified as a correction deed may correct errors in description or spelling in a prior deed.
[2] When construing a correction deed and the deed it corrects, both instruments are read together to determine the parties' intent.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A deed containing an incorrect description or a misspelling of names may be corrected by a subsequent instrument clearly identified as a correction deed. Said deed need not restate all material portions of the deed being corrected if such portions contain no errors. Both instruments will be construed together.”
Establishes the legal principle that correction deeds are valid and need only address erroneous portions while relating to the original deed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 23, 1954, appellee executed a warranty deed conveying property while retaining all oil and mineral rights, but the deed contained errors in pr…
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 Deed Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek reversal of a final judgment declaring appellee to be the owner of all oil and mineral rights in and under certain property described in a warranty deed dated and recorded on July 12, 1954.
On June 23, 1954, appellee executed and placed on record a warranty deed conveying certain property, but retaining all oil and mineral rights in and to the property. The description of the property and the spelling of one of the grantee’s name was erroneous. Hence, on July 12, 1954, another warranty deed was executed and recorded. After a correct description of the property was set forth, this latter deed contained the following words:
“This is a correction deed executed for the purpose of correcting errors in a previous deed dated June 23, 1954 executed by the grantors herein to the grantees herein and found recorded in deed book 110 at page 469 of the public records of Santa Rosa County, Florida.”
Thereafter, this same property was conveyed to other persons on three subsequent occasions until the appellants herein became the grantees in 1962. Except for the reservation made in the June 23, 1954 deed, no reference was made in any subsequent deed to any oil or mineral reservation in appellee.
Appellee filed the present suit seeking a declaration that appellants had no right, title or interest in the minerals because of the original reservation contained in the June 23, 1954 deed. The trial court found that the parties to the June 23rd and the July 12th deeds intended only to correct errors in description and not to enlarge the grant of the earlier deed to include oil and mineral rights previously retained. Appel-lee was declared to be the owner of all oil and mineral rights in and to the subject property.
We must agree with the findings and conclusions of the court below. A deed containing an incorrect description or a misspelling of names may be corrected by a subsequent instrument clearly identified as a correction deed. Said deed need not restate all material portions of the deed being corrected if such portions contain no errors. Both instruments will be construed together. 23 Am.Jur.2d, “Deeds”, § 287. In the present case, the July 12, 1954 correction deed clearly and unequivocally relates to and identifies the June 23, 1954 deed and both deeds are recorded. The correction deed of July 12th was placed on record before anyone else’s rights intervened and both deeds were record notice to subsequent purchasers. Appellants, as well as all other subsequent grantees, had clear notice of appellee’s reservation of oil and mineral rights by virtue of the direct reference in the July 12th correction deed to the June 23rd .instrument it was correcting. Thus, appellants’ points on appeal concerning reformation of deeds when the rights of subsequent bona fide purchasers for value have intervened and estoppel are without merit.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.B. McLEMORE v. McLEMORE, 675 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…apable of accepting and holding title as grantee, we do not determine the effect of such a corrective deed placed on the record after portions of the property were alleged to have been sold through unrecorded contracts for deed. See Golden v. Hayes, 277 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Upon remand, the trial court may receive such evidence as will aid in resolution of the issues of Klenton McLe-more’s intended beneficiaries, and the effectiveness of the relation back of the corrective deed to the date of…