McCoy v. Love
382 So. 2d 647 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed procured by fraud in the inducement, where the grantor is aware of the instrument's character as a deed but is deceived as to its contents or terms, is merely voidable in equity and not void ab initio. Such a deed conveys legal title to the fraudulent grantee, which can then be passed to a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Facts:
- Mary V. Nowling Elliott, an elderly woman who could neither read nor write, owned a one-fifth interest in minerals under a seventy-five-acre tract of land.
- B.G. Russell offered to purchase Elliott's entire mineral interest, but she refused.
- Elliott orally agreed to sell Russell a portion of her interest, equivalent to two mineral acres, for $3,300.
- Russell prepared a mineral deed that, instead of conveying two acres, fraudulently substituted a clause conveying Elliott's entire one-fifth interest, which was equivalent to fifteen acres.
- Elliott's daughter reviewed the document but did not understand its legal significance and advised her mother it was likely acceptable.
- Elliott signed and delivered the fraudulent deed to Russell, believing she was conveying only two acres.
- Russell subsequently conveyed a substantial portion of the mineral rights to C.P. McClelland.
- McClelland then conveyed these rights to respondents Love, Harris, and Carpenter.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary V. Nowling Elliott filed an action in the trial court seeking cancellation of the deed she had conveyed to B.G. Russell and which was subsequently conveyed to others.
- The trial court found that the deed was procured by trick and fraud, held that the instrument was void, and entered judgment for Elliott.
- The subsequent purchasers (Love, et al., as appellants) appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the deed was merely voidable and that the subsequent purchasers' defenses could apply.
- Elliott's estate (as petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of certiorari, claiming the district court's decision conflicted with another appellate decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a deed, the execution of which is procured by fraudulent misrepresentation of its contents, void ab initio or merely voidable when the grantor knew she was signing a deed but was deceived as to the amount of property being conveyed?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A deed procured through fraud in the inducement is voidable, not void. The court reasoned that a critical distinction exists between fraud in the execution (where the grantor is deceived as to the character of the instrument) and fraud in the inducement (where the grantor knows the character of the instrument but is deceived as to its terms). Here, Elliott knew she was signing and delivering a deed for mineral rights; the fraud pertained to the quantity of rights being conveyed. Because all essential legal requisites of a deed, including delivery, were present, the instrument successfully conveyed legal title to the grantee, Russell. This title, while subject to cancellation by Elliott in equity, can protect a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value who had no notice of the fraud. The court disapproved of the contrary holding in Houston v. Mentelos and distinguished cases like Houston v. Adams, where fraud prevented a valid delivery from escrow, thus rendering the deed void.
Dissenting - Overton, J.
Yes. The dissenting opinion argues that the deed should be held void under the factual circumstances of the case. The author would have affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the situation consistent with the precedent set in Houston v. Adams, which held that a deed procured by fraud is void.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between void and voidable deeds in Florida property law, particularly in cases of fraud. By holding that fraud in the inducement renders a deed merely voidable, the court prioritizes the stability of land titles and the protection of bona fide purchasers who rely on the public record. This precedent places a significant burden on grantors to verify the contents of documents they sign, as their failure to do so may prevent them from reclaiming property from an innocent third-party purchaser. The ruling curtails the ability of a defrauded party to nullify all subsequent transactions, thereby strengthening the finality of recorded conveyances.
Unlock the full brief for McCoy v. Love