House v. Rice

857 S.E.2d 369 (Table)

Lawrence Pharo HOUSE, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Elsie House Andrews, Plaintiff,

v.Virginia House RICE and Heath Thomas Christopher Rice, Defendants.

No. COA20-430

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 4, 2021

Barnwell & Long, PLLC, by Stephen Barnwell, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Craig Law Firm, PLLC, by Sam B. Craig, for Defendants-Appellees.

GORE, Judge.

¶ 1 Lawrence Pharo House, Jr. ("Plaintiff"), appeals from a trial court's judgment declaring three deeds as valid and enforceable conveyances to Virginia House Rice and Heath Thomas Christopher Rice (collectively, "Defendants"). Specifically, Plaintiff takes issue with the trial court's conclusions of law numbers 3-8 and contends that the deeds in question contain no language of grant or conveyance. Accordingly, he argues that the deeds should be declared invalid and unenforceable. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Elsie House Andrew¹ ("Andrew"), mother to both Plaintiff and Defendant Virginia House Rice, and grandmother to Defendant Heath Thomas Christopher Rice, executed three deeds subject to this appeal. Each of the deeds contain the words "NORTH CAROLINA WARRANTY DEED," "GRANTOR," "GRANTEE," a sufficient description of the property, and the following language:

Witnesseth, that said Grantor, for in consideration of the sum of ($0.00) DOLLARS indicating NO REVENUE RECEIVED, and no other good and valuable considerations in hand paid by Grantees, the receipt forever all the right, title, interest, claim, and demand which the said Grantor has in and to the following described lot, piece or parcel of land, situate lying and being in BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, to-wit[.]

¶ 3 In addition to Andrew's signature on each of the three deeds, the words "No Money Exchanged" were handwritten near the "Grantor" section at the top of the front page. On or about 26 August 2016, Andrew presented the three signed and notarized deeds to the Buncombe County Register of Deeds, recorded in Deed Book 5461 at Pages 705, 707, 709. Andrew died on 30 May 2018, approximately twenty-one months after recording the deeds.

¶ 4 Plaintiff commenced this action on 15 January 2019 by filing a complaint and issuance of summons which sought: (1) a declaratory judgment voiding the three recorded deeds for their lacking language of grant; (2) judgment declaring the three deeds null and void due to their fraudulent procurement; and (3) judgment declaring the three deeds null and void due to undue influence in their procurement. On 21 March 2019 and 4 April 2019, Defendants filed verified answers and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment that the deeds in question are valid and enforceable. Plaintiff filed a reply on 11 April 2019. The parties acknowledged that the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

¶ 5 On 9 March 2020, this matter proceeded to trial without a jury before the Honorable Steven R. Warren of the Buncombe County Superior Court. On 30 March 2020, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff gave written notice of appeal on 22 April 2020.

¶ 6 On appeal, Plaintiff does not contest the trial court's adjudication in favor of Defendants on the issues of fraudulent procurement or undue influence. This appeal pertains only to Plaintiff's first cause of action, that the three recorded deeds should be declared null and void for lacking language of grant. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's conclusions of law numbers 3-8 and judgment declaring the deeds to be valid and enforceable.

¶ 7 The contested conclusions of law are as follows:

3. The words "the receipt forever" are technically operative words of conveyance, just as "the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged" are words used to indicate conveyance of monies.

4. The words "the receipt forever" indicate a current conveyance, not merely an intention.

5. The words "the receipt forever all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said Grantor has in and to the [properties described in the respective deeds executed by Andrew on 26 August 2016]" indicate Andrew's knowing intent to currently, and permanently, convey those properties.

6. Within the four corners of the document, other indicators of knowing intent of Andrew to convey property include Andrew's handwriting directly on or near the all-capitalized words "GRANTOR," "GRANTEE," and "GENERAL WARRANTY DEED."

7. The Three Deeds contain all of the essential elements of a deed, including a competent grantor, capable grantees, operative words of conveyance, a sufficient description of the respective properties, proper execution, and proper delivery and acceptance.

8. The Three Deeds are valid and enforceable.

Plaintiff argues that the three deeds at issue should be declared null and void because they contain no operative words of conveyance. We disagree.

II. Discussion

¶ 8 "Conclusions of law drawn by the trial judge from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal." Humphries v. Jacksonville , 300 N.C. 186, 187, 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980) (citations omitted). "Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal." State v. Williams , 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

¶ 9 "The outcome of the instant matter hinges on interpreting the language of the Deed, and therefore our analysis is rooted in the canons of construction outlined by our state's jurisprudence." Rutledge v. Feher , 255 N.C. App. 356, 360, 804 S.E.2d 806, 809 (2017). "In construing written conveyances of property, the court ultimately endeavors to determine and effectuate the intent of the parties based on the written language they used." Id. at 360, 804 S.E.2d at 809 (citation omitted). "In construing a deed and determining the intention of the parties, ordinarily the intention must be gathered from the language of the deed itself when its terms are unambiguous." Smith v. Smith , 249 N.C. 669, 675, 107 S.E.2d 530, 534 (1959). "However, there are instances in which consideration should be given to the instruments made contemporaneously therewith, the circumstances attending the execution of the deed, and to the situation of the parties at the time." Id. at 675, 107 S.E.2d at 534.

Another maxim is that such a construction should be made of the words of a deed as is most agreeable to the intention of the grantor. The words are not the principal thing in a deed, but the intent and design of the grantor. We have no power, indeed, to alter the words or to insert words which are not in the deed, but we may and ought to construe the words in a manner the most agreeable to the meaning of the grantor[ ] and may reject any words that are merely insensible.

Elliott v. Jefferson , 133 N.C. 207, 215, 45 S.E. 558, 561 (1903) (citation omitted).

¶ 10 "An effective deed must, of course, contain operative words of conveyance which indicate the grantor's intention to convey his property." New Home Bldg. Supply Co. v. Nations , 259 N.C. 681, 683-84, 131 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1963) (citation omitted). "The absence of such words cannot be supplied ... but the...