Rutledge v. Feher

255 N.C.App. 356

804 S.E.2d 806

Linnie Price RUTLEDGE and husband Charles Rutledge, Plaintiffs,

v.Lisa Viele FEHER, Marsha Viele, David Viele Jr., and wife Rachel Viele, Beau Skinner and wife, Josefina Skinner, Bridgett Skinner Otero and husband, Jehiell Otero and Helen Viele Price and husband, George Price, Lisa A. Adams and husband, Christopher Adams, Prantawan Jusee, and Bob J. Howell, Successor Trustee of the Dwight A Viele, Sr. Revocable Trust U/A/D July 28, 2010, Defendants.

No. COA16-1287

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

McLean Law Firm, P.A., Waynesville, by Russell L. McLean, III, for Defendants-Appellants.

Scott Taylor, PLLC, by J. Scott Taylor, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

MURPHY, Judge.

This case involves a general warranty deed conveying a life estate to the grantors’ children and a future interest to certain of the grantors’ grandchildren. One of the grantors’ grandchildren, Linnie Price Rutledge, and her husband, brought this action, seeking a declaratory judgment as to their rights and interest in the subject property and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from transferring any ownership interest they have in the property.

Based on the language of the deed at issue, the trial court concluded that Plaintiff Linnie Price Rutledge and Defendant Lisa Viele Feher both hold a contingent remainder interest in the property. Further, the trial court concluded that the class of grandchildren will not close and cannot be determined until the death of Helen Viele Price, nor can the individuals in which the remainder interest vests be determined until the death of Helen Viele Price.¹ After careful review, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Background

C.E. Viele and his wife Margaret Viele (collectively, the "Vieles") owned land in Jackson County (the "Property"). They had four children together: Dwight Allen Viele ("Dwight"), Charles E. Viele, Jr. ("Charles"),² Richard E. Viele ("Richard"), and Helen Viele Price ("Ms. Price"). The Vieles also had several grandchildren. Dwight had four children: Dwight Viele, Jr., David Viele, Sr., Terry Viele Skinner, and Lisa Viele Feher ("Lisa").³ Richard had two children: Debra Viele and Richard Viele, Jr.⁴ Ms. Price had one child: Linnie Price Rutledge ("Linnie").

On 12 October 1983, the Vieles executed a North Carolina General Warranty Deed (the "Deed") to the Property in which they retained a life estate for themselves and conveyed a life estate to their four children as well as a fee simple remainder interest to their grandchildren. In pertinent part, the precise language of the Deed reads:

That [the Vieles] ... have given, granted, bargained, sold and conveyed and by these presents do hereby give, grant, bargain, sell and convey unto [Dwight, Ms. Price, Charles, and Richard], subject to the exceptions, reservations and restrictions, if any, and together with any rights-of-way, if any, hereinafter state, a life estate, said life estate to continue until the death of the last survivor of the four above-named children; and upon the death of the last of the four above-named children, fee simple title is to vest in our grandchildren, the living issue of the four above-named children , all of that certain piece, parcel or tract of land, situate[d], lying and being in Jackson County, North Carolina, but reserving, however, unto Grantors, a Life Estate in said lands....

(Emphasis added).

At the time of execution of the Deed, all seven of the named children and grandchildren were alive. According to Appellants’ brief, C.E. Viele died in 1987 and Margaret Viele died in 2002.

Linnie and her husband, Charles Rutledge, (collectively, "Plaintiffs") commenced this action on 24 November 2014, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations in the Property pursuant to the Deed, and they contended that "they are the persons with who[m] title vests upon the passing of Helen Viele Price." Accordingly, they requested that the trial court enjoin Defendants from transferring any ownership rights or interest in the Property. At the time, Ms. Price was the only living child of the Vieles, and Linnie and Lisa were their only living grandchildren. David Viele, Jr., Lisa Viele Adams, Beau Skinner, and Bridgett Skinner Otero were living great-grandchildren of the Vieles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 18 February 2015, adding several parties not involved in the instant appeal.⁵ In March of 2015, Ms. Price conveyed her life estate interest to Linnie. On 15 October 2015, Defendants David Viele, Jr., and his wife, Rachel Viele, Beau Skinner and his wife, Josefina Skinner, and Bridgett Skinner Otero (collectively, "Appellants") and husband, Jehiell Otero, filed an answer. The remaining Defendants did not respond and default judgments were entered against them.

The matter was scheduled for a non-jury trial and the participating parties entered 20 stipulations of fact to narrow the issues before the trial court. After considering the pleadings, stipulations, and the Deed, the trial court concluded:

1. Lisa Viele Feher and Linnie Price Rutledge each hold a contingent remainder interest in the subject property.

2. The class of grandchildren will not close and cannot be determined until the death of Helen Viele Price.

3. The individuals in which the remainder interest vests cannot be established until the death of Helen Viele Price.

Appellants timely appealed.

Analysis

Appellants raise three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in determining Linnie and Lisa hold a contingent remainder interest in the Property rather than a vested remainder subject to open or partial divesture; (2) whether the trial court erred in determining that the class of grandchildren cannot be determined until the death of Ms. Price; and (3) whether the trial court erred in determining that the individuals in which the remainder interest vests cannot be determined until the death of Ms. Price. As each of these issues overlap, we discuss them collectively.

We review a judgment entered after a non-jury trial to determine "whether there is competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment." Sessler v. Marsh , 144 N.C. App. 623, 628, 551 S.E.2d 160, 163, disc. review denied , 354 N.C. 365, 556 S.E.2d 577 (2001) ). In the instant case, neither party disputes the findings of fact made by the trial court, and, accordingly, they are binding on appeal. Cape Fear River Watch v. N. Carolina Envntl. Mgmt. Cmm'n , 368 N.C. 92, 99, 772 S.E.2d 445, 450 (2015) (quotation omitted). "Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review." State v. Biber , 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011) ; see also Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Asheville , 358 N.C. 512, 517, 597 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2004) ("Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal." (emphasis omitted)).

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. 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. Strickland v. Jackson , 259 N.C. 81, 83, 130 S.E.2d 22, 24 (1963) ; see also Mercer v. Downs , 191 N.C. 203, 205, 131 S.E. 575, 576 (1926) (holding that "the intent of the testator is paramount"). Explained more broadly by our Supreme Court nearly a century ago:

Whatever the technicalities of the law may formerly have required in the construction of deeds, the modern doctrine does not favor the application of such technical rules as will defeat the obvious intention of the grantor—not the unexpressed purpose which may have existed in his mind, of course, but his intention as expressed in the language he has employed ; for it is an elementary rule of construction that the intention of the parties shall prevail, unless it is in conflict with some unyielding canon of construction or settled rule of property, or is repugnant to the terms of the grant. Such intention as a general rule must be sought in the terms of the instrument ; but if the words used leave the intention in doubt, resort may be had to the circumstances attending the execution of the instrument and the situation of the parties at that time....

Seawell v. Hall , 185 N.C. 80, 82, 116 S.E. 189, 190 (1923) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court also guided that, ordinarily, to construe a deed and determine the parties’ intention, a court gathers the intention "from the language of the deed itself when its terms are unambiguous. 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." Smith v. Smith , 249 N.C. 669, 675, 107 S.E.2d 530, 534 (1959)

On that basis, if "[t]he language of the deed [at issue is] clear and unequivocal, it must be given effect according to its terms, and we may not speculate that the grantor intended otherwise." Cty. of Moore v. Humane Soc'y of Moore Cty., Inc. , 157 N.C. App. 293, 298, 578 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "We must, if possible without resorting to parol evidence, determine the grantors’ intent based on the four corners of the deed." Simmons v. Waddell , 241 N.C. App. 512, 524, 775 S.E.2d 661, 674 (2015) (citation omitted). Language that is otherwise clear will not be disturbed by punctuation; however, punctuation may be considered in deriving the intent of the parties. Stephens Co. v. Lisk , 240 N.C. 289, 293, 82 S.E.2d 99, 102 (1954) (citations omitted).

Appellants contend that, as heirs of the Vieles’ son...