Bridges v. Heimburger
360 So. 2d 929 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The covenants of quiet enjoyment and warranty of title, which run with the land, are breached only upon the grantee's actual or constructive eviction, not merely by the discovery of a superior title. A remote grantor is not liable for breach of these covenants to a remote grantee whose possession has never been disturbed or threatened.
Facts:
- In 1967, W.P. Bridges, Jr. and Dewitt Deweese sold a lot, but a mutual error resulted in the deed naming Moore Homes, Inc. as the grantee while an individual, Hugh H. Moore, signed the deed of trust.
- In 1968, after Moore defaulted, Bridges and Deweese foreclosed and repurchased the lot, but due to the prior error, legal title technically and unknowingly remained with Moore Homes, Inc.
- In 1969, Bridges and Deweese conveyed the lot via a general warranty deed to Doyle Homes, Inc.
- Doyle Homes, Inc. constructed a house on the lot and, in 1970, sold it to Steven L. Heimburger.
- In 1974, Heimburger contracted to sell the property, but the sale was cancelled when the title defect from the 1967 transaction was discovered.
- Heimburger's possession of the property was never disturbed or threatened by the actual title holder or any other party.
- In November 1974, several months after its discovery, the title defect was cured by a quitclaim deed from Moore Homes, Inc. to Doyle Homes, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven L. Heimburger (Complainant) sued his immediate grantor, Doyle Homes, Inc., and the remote grantors, W.P. Bridges, Jr. and Dewitt Deweese (Defendants), in the Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, for damages.
- Doyle Homes, Inc. did not appear in the action.
- The trial court overruled a demurrer filed by Bridges and Deweese.
- Following a hearing, the Chancellor (trial court) entered a money judgment for Heimburger against all defendants for lost profits from the failed sale plus attorney's fees.
- Bridges and Deweese, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Heimburger is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the covenants of quiet enjoyment and warranty of title in a general warranty deed give a remote grantee a cause of action for damages against a remote grantor when the grantee's possession of the property was never disturbed, despite the discovery of a curable title defect that caused a potential sale to fail?
Opinions:
Majority - Bizzell, Commissioner
No. A remote grantee does not have a cause of action against a remote grantor for breach of the covenants of quiet enjoyment and warranty of title unless there has been an eviction or its equivalent. The court reasoned that while the covenants of seizin and power to sell were technically breached, they are personal covenants that do not run with the land and thus could not be enforced by a remote grantee like Heimburger. The covenants that do run with the land—quiet enjoyment and warranty of title—are future covenants broken only by an actual or constructive eviction. Since Heimburger's possession was never disturbed or even threatened, these covenants were never breached. The court further noted that even if a breach had occurred, damages would be limited to the property's value at the time of the remote grantor's conveyance in 1969, and lost profits from a failed resale are not a recoverable element of damages.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between present and future covenants in a warranty deed and reaffirms the long-standing requirement of eviction for a breach of future covenants. It establishes that the mere discovery of a title defect, even one that thwarts a lucrative sale, does not constitute a constructive eviction sufficient to trigger liability for a remote grantor. This decision protects remote grantors from liability for appreciation in property value and consequential damages, like lost profits, which occur long after their involvement with the property has ended. It reinforces a bright-line rule that provides certainty in real estate transactions by limiting liability to concrete disturbances of possession.
