Walters v. Tucker
281 S.W.2d 843 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property description in a deed, such as 'The West 50 feet of Lot 13,' that is clear on its face and can be applied to the land without inconsistency is not ambiguous. Therefore, parol evidence is inadmissible to demonstrate that the parties intended to convey a different parcel of land than that described.
Facts:
- Fred F. Wolf and Rose E. Wolf owned a parcel of land known as Lot 13 of West Helfenstein Park.
- In 1924, the Wolfs conveyed 'The West 50 feet of Lot 13' to Charles Arthur Forse and his wife. A house, now known as 450 Oak Street, was already located on this tract.
- The plaintiff is the successor in title to the Forse property, holding deeds with the same description.
- In 1925, one year after the initial conveyance, the Wolfs built a stucco house, now known as 446 Oak Street, on the portion of Lot 13 they had retained.
- The defendants are the successors in title to the property with the stucco house.
- Lot 13 is irregularly shaped, with its northern boundary on Oak Street and its southern boundary on a railroad right-of-way, both of which run at an angle to the lot's west line.
- A survey measuring a uniform 50-foot width at a right angle from the west lot line results in a boundary that comes within two feet of the defendants' house.
- Measuring 50 feet of frontage along the angled Oak Street would result in the plaintiff's lot having an actual width of only 42-43 feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action to quiet title against defendants in the trial court in St. Louis County, Missouri.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the deed's description was ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, which had the effect of fixing the plaintiff's lot width at approximately 42 feet.
- Plaintiff, the losing party at trial, appealed the judgment to this court.
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 the property description 'The West 50 feet of Lot 13' contain a latent ambiguity that permits the admission of parol evidence to interpret the parties' intent, where applying the description results in a boundary line close to an adjacent structure built after the original conveyance?
Opinions:
Majority - Hollingsworth, Judge
No. The property description 'The West 50 feet of Lot 13' is not ambiguous and does not permit the admission of parol evidence to alter its plain meaning. The phrase clearly and unambiguously conveys a strip of land of a uniform 50-foot width measured at right angles from the west side of Lot 13. A latent ambiguity only arises when a description that is clear on its face becomes uncertain when applied to the land, such as when it could describe two or more parcels. Here, the description fits the land claimed by the plaintiff perfectly and cannot be made to apply to any other tract. The subsequent construction of the defendants' house close to the boundary line by the original grantor does not create an ambiguity in the prior deed. The trial court improperly admitted parol evidence not to interpret an ambiguity, but to reform the deed, which is an entirely different legal remedy that the defendants did not seek.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of the parol evidence rule in the context of real property deeds, prioritizing the plain language of the instrument over extrinsic evidence of intent. It establishes a clear interpretive rule that a description like 'the West X feet' refers to a uniform width measured at right angles from the boundary, not frontage along an angled line. The decision underscores the critical distinction between interpreting an ambiguous deed, which allows parol evidence, and reforming a mistaken but unambiguous deed, which requires a separate legal action and a higher standard of proof. This precedent strengthens the certainty of land titles by limiting the ability of courts to alter clear descriptions based on subsequent actions or alleged intentions.
Unlock the full brief for Walters v. Tucker