"A" conveyed Blackacre to "B," a trust for which he and his ex-wife were trustees, with a reservation of minerals to "A." A short time later, "C" sought to purchase Blackacre and "B" accepted the offer. A question was then raised whether this acceptance was in proper form, and an Adoption and Ratification as well as a cash sale deed were executed by the Trust (subject to any recorded reservations) and on a second page of the deed, "A" appeared in an individual capacity. The deed stated that he "herein quitclaims, conveys, and delivers unto Vendees all interest he may have in and to the above described property." Seven years later, "C" granted a lease to the minerals on Blackacre. The plaintiffs, "A" and his successor-in-interest, brought suit against "C" and lessees seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of the minerals or that the deed be reformed based on error. The trial court held that the deed in question clearly and unambiguously transferred both the surface and the mineral rights to "C." Plaintiffs appealed. Held: affirmed, but on rehearing before a panel of five, reversed. A quitclaim deed is one which purports to convey nothing more than the interest or estate in the property described of which the grantor is seized or possessed, if any, at the time. The seller is bound to explain himself clearly respecting the extent of his obligations; any obscure or ambiguous clause is construed against him. The trustees of the Trust transferred what the Trust owned subject to any recorded mineral reservations (leaving unaffected, the reservation of minerals in "A"). "A" and his ex-wife signed as trustees. In the next section of the deed "A" appeared in his individual capacity and quitclaimed all interest, which thus apparently included the minerals mat he had earlier reserved. Initially, the Court of Appeals held that the language of the quitclaim was unambiguous and thus resort to extrinsic evidence was excluded. On rehearing, the court reversed itself. Now the court found that deed was ambiguous. Uncertainty or ambiguity resulted from the first page "subject to" language and the second page "quitclaim" language of the deed. The former purports to be subject to the prior recorded mineral reservation, while the latter does not mention minerals or mineral reservations. As such, the clauses were mutually inconsistent, or, at the least, confusing. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, with two judges dissenting.
展开▼
