Seymour v. Evans
1992 WL 118677, 608 So.2d 1141 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conveyance of land that itself creates a violation of a local subdivision or zoning ordinance does not breach the seller's implied common law covenants of warranty contained in a warranty deed.
Facts:
- Edna C. Seymour owned a large, unplatted tract of land in Jackson County.
- In 1983, Seymour sold a three-acre parcel to the McDonnells, who subsequently conveyed it to Jerry and Bonnie Ann Coleman.
- In 1984, at the request of Larry and Gina Evans and Dudley and Lori Cruse, Seymour divided a five-and-a-half-acre tract and sold them two separate parcels of approximately 2.75 acres each.
- Seymour also granted the Evans and Cruses an easement for access across her remaining property.
- All three sets of buyers (the Colemans, Evans, and Cruses) intended to use their properties for residential purposes.
- In 1986, the Cruses applied for a permit to place a mobile home on their property but were denied by the Jackson County Planning Department.
- County officials informed the buyers that Seymour's division and sale of the land violated county subdivision ordinances, and no permits could be issued until the property was brought into compliance.
- Seymour was unaware of the subdivision regulations at the time of the conveyances.
Procedural Posture:
- The buyers (Evans, Coleman, and Cruse families) filed a complaint against the seller, Edna C. Seymour, in the Chancery Court of Jackson County.
- The chancellor (trial court judge) entered a judgment in favor of the buyers.
- The chancellor's decree set aside the warranty deeds and ordered Seymour to reimburse the buyers for all payments, down payments, taxes, fees, and other costs.
- Seymour, as the appellant, appealed the chancery court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 a seller's conveyance of real property, which violates a county subdivision ordinance and thereby prevents the buyers from obtaining building permits, breach the common law covenants of warranty implied in a warranty deed?
Opinions:
Majority - McRae, Justice
No. A conveyance that creates a violation of a county subdivision ordinance does not breach the seller's implied warranties. The covenants of seisin and power to sell relate to the seller's estate and title, not their compliance with land use regulations; a deed that violates such an ordinance is not void. The covenant against encumbrances is not breached because an encumbrance must be an existing violation at the time of conveyance, whereas here the violation was created by the conveyance itself. Finally, the covenant of quiet enjoyment was not breached because the buyers' title and right to possession were never disturbed; an inability to use the property as intended is not equivalent to a constructive eviction.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the common law covenants of warranty, reinforcing that they primarily protect against defects in title and possession, not frustrations of the buyer's intended use due to public land use regulations. The ruling places the burden of due diligence squarely on the buyer to investigate all applicable zoning and subdivision ordinances prior to purchase. It establishes that a violation of such an ordinance created by the act of conveyance itself does not constitute a breach of the covenant against encumbrances, distinguishing it from violations that exist prior to the sale. This case serves as a strong precedent limiting a seller's liability for unknown regulatory impediments affecting land use.
