Harrell v. Harrell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Harrell v. Harrell

300 S.E.2d 806, 250 Ga. 797, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 616

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1983

Docket39570

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 S.E.2d 806 (Harrell v. Harrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrell v. Harrell, 300 S.E.2d 806, 250 Ga. 797, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 616 (Ga. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

Hazel Harrell conveyed to her two sons by warranty deed a tract of land “subject, however, to life estates which are hereby expressly [798]*798reserved unto the said Hazel Harrell and her husband, E. M. Harrell.” Subsequently, she executed in reference to this tract and other lands a second warranty deed to her sons, referring to the first deed and reciting that “through inadvertence [she had] reserved a life estate in herself and her husband, E. M. Harrell.”

Decided March 16, 1983 — Rehearing denied April 5, 1983. ffl. Douglas Adams, for appellants. J.‘ Edwin Peavy, for appellee.

1. The trial court held that E. M. Harrell acquired a life estate by virtue of the first deed, which estate was not divested by the second. We agree, and affirm this ruling. Roe v. Doe, 246 Ga. 138, 139 (1) (268 SE2d 901) (1980); Martin v. Heard, 239 Ga. 816 (238 SE2d 899) (1977); Rollins v. Davis, 96 Ga. 107 (23 SE 392) (1895). The case of Deaver v. Aaron, 159 Ga. 597 (126 SE 382) (1924), was overruled sub silentio by Roe v. Doe, supra, and Martin v. Heard, supra, and now is expressly overruled.

2. The wife’s second deed recited that the reservation of life estates in the first deed was “through inadvertence.” We have already determined that the first deed was sufficient to create a life estate in the husband, which vested upon delivery of the first deed, and remains, as to his interest, unaffected by the second deed. As between the wife and the grantees, however, the second deed had the effect, by reformation, of eliminating ab initio the life estate reserved by the first deed to the wife, not of conveying that life estate to the grantees. Clay v. Stanfield, 216 Ga. 785, 786 (119 SE2d 564) (1961); Deck v. Deck, 195 Ga. 404 (24 SE2d 303) (1934).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Weltner, Justice.

Hazel Harrell conveyed to her two sons by warranty deed a tract of land “subject, however, to life estates which are hereby expressly [798]*798reserved unto the said Hazel Harrell and her husband, E. M. Harrell.” Subsequently, she executed in reference to this tract and other lands a second warranty deed to her sons, referring to the first deed and reciting that “through inadvertence [she had] reserved a life estate in herself and her husband, E. M. Harrell.”

Decided March 16, 1983 — Rehearing denied April 5, 1983. ffl. Douglas Adams, for appellants. J.‘ Edwin Peavy, for appellee.

1. The trial court held that E. M. Harrell acquired a life estate by virtue of the first deed, which estate was not divested by the second. We agree, and affirm this ruling. Roe v. Doe, 246 Ga. 138, 139 (1) (268 SE2d 901) (1980); Martin v. Heard, 239 Ga. 816 (238 SE2d 899) (1977); Rollins v. Davis, 96 Ga. 107 (23 SE 392) (1895). The case of Deaver v. Aaron, 159 Ga. 597 (126 SE 382) (1924), was overruled sub silentio by Roe v. Doe, supra, and Martin v. Heard, supra, and now is expressly overruled.

2. The wife’s second deed recited that the reservation of life estates in the first deed was “through inadvertence.” We have already determined that the first deed was sufficient to create a life estate in the husband, which vested upon delivery of the first deed, and remains, as to his interest, unaffected by the second deed. As between the wife and the grantees, however, the second deed had the effect, by reformation, of eliminating ab initio the life estate reserved by the first deed to the wife, not of conveying that life estate to the grantees. Clay v. Stanfield, 216 Ga. 785, 786 (119 SE2d 564) (1961); Deck v. Deck, 195 Ga. 404 (24 SE2d 303) (1934).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 S.E.2d 806, 250 Ga. 797, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-harrell-ga-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack