Reed v. Hassell
340 A.2d 157, 1975 Del. Super. LEXIS 201 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of merger, a deed is the final execution of a contract of sale and supersedes any inconsistent terms of the prior contract. A seller is bound by the warranties in the deed, even if the sales contract contained a less protective clause, especially when the defect at issue frustrates the fundamental purpose of the transaction.
Facts:
- Thomas and Sally Reed entered into a contract with Loretta Hassell to purchase two building lots in Sussex County, Delaware.
- The sales contract stated the title would be good and merchantable, but excepted "easements which may be in observed by the inspection of the property."
- Hassell subsequently conveyed the lots to the Reeds via a special warranty deed, as required by the contract.
- At the time of the sale, an existing road known as Hassell Avenue significantly encroached on one of the lots (Lot 82), reducing its area by approximately 25%.
- Neither the Reeds nor Hassell were aware of this encroachment at the time of the contract or the conveyance.
- The encroachment severely limited the lot's usefulness for building a house, which was the parties' intended purpose.
- The property was covered in heavy growth, making it impossible to observe the lot's boundaries without substantial clearing work.
- The Reeds discovered the encroachment several years later after clearing the land and commissioning a professional survey.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and Sally Reed filed a lawsuit against Loretta Hassell in a Delaware trial court (Superior Court).
- The Reeds' initial complaint sought damages based on 'misrepresentation, deceit and fraud.'
- The Reeds informally amended their complaint to add an alternative claim for damages for breach of the special warranty covenant contained in the deed.
- A hearing on the matter was held before the court, leading to the current opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an exception in a real estate sales contract, which excludes liability for easements observable by inspection, survive the delivery of a special warranty deed that contains no such exception, thereby protecting the seller from liability for a major encroachment that renders the property unfit for its intended use?
Opinions:
Majority - Christie, Judge.
No. An exception clause in a sales contract does not survive the delivery of an unconditional special warranty deed under the doctrine of merger. When a deed is executed and delivered pursuant to a contract of sale, the contract merges with the deed, which becomes the final, overriding agreement between the parties. The court reasoned that the parties' obvious intent was to convey and receive usable building lots. The contractual exception for observable easements was only meant to cover minor encumbrances that do not go to the essence of the bargain, not a major encroachment that severely limits the property's intended use. Therefore, the seller is bound by the more comprehensive warranties contained in the deed, and the less protective clause in the sales contract is rendered ineffective.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of merger in real estate transactions, clarifying that it can bind a seller to the terms of a deed even when a prior sales contract offered the seller more protection. The court emphasizes that the doctrine's application is guided by the parties' intent, preventing its mechanical use to reach an inequitable result. This case illustrates that a seller cannot rely on a contractual "escape clause" after delivering a deed with more comprehensive warranties, particularly when a latent defect substantially undermines the value and intended use of the property.
