Central Mortgage Co. v. Humphrey
328 Ga. App. 474
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Central Mortgage sued Humphrey and Elder seeking reformation, declaratory judgment, or equitable relief for the conveyance of 1961 Luke Edwards Rd; $1.4M sale, Elder loaned $980k, Humphrey took $847,133 at closing.
- Trial court found no meeting of the minds on the exact land to be conveyed and declined reformation, rescission, liens, or declaratory relief.
- Property history involved multiple adjacent parcels (Lots 6–8, Block B) with road frontage on Luke Edwards Road, various easements, and zoning issues.
- Sale terms were murky: two contracts (one stating +/-10 acres, another +/-17 acres) with no formal survey or fixed legal description.
- Appraisal and extrinsic evidence suggested different understandings of land and improvements; the court found credibility issues but concluded no definite land was agreed to.
- Central appealed, arguing four theories; the appellate standard is de novo for legal questions with deference to trial findings if supported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation of deed for mutual mistake | Central seeks reformation to match parties’ intention | Humphrey/Elder contend description lacked certainty and no meeting of minds | Denied; court affirmed trial court’s denial of reformation |
| Rescission of the contract | Central urged full rescission due to lack of meeting of minds | Humphrey/Elder did not seek rescission; rescission not viable here | Denied; no reversible error in denying rescission |
| Equitable lien for consideration received | Central seeks lien equal to consideration paid | No basis for equitable lien; remedy exists against Elder for note | Denied; no error in declining equitable lien |
| Declaratory relief to fix boundary lines | Central seeks declaratory boundaries via judgment | Contractual remedies exist; declaratory relief inappropriate | Denied; courtReasoned no need to rewrite boundaries; remedies adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Oakhurst Dev. Corp., 197 Ga. 288 (Ga. 1944) (limits on reforming deeds; extrinsic evidence admissible to identify property)
- Wisener v. Gulledge, 251 Ga. 419 (Ga. 1983) (acknowledges limits on reformation when description faulty from survey error)
- Vance v. Jackson, 233 Ga. App. 480 (Ga. App. 1998) (noting when deed reform is improper or unnecessary)
- Ceasar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 322 Ga. App. 529 (Ga. App. 2013) (appellate treatment of faulty legal description in mortgage context)
- Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Nash, 196 Ga. App. 543 (Ga. App. 1990) (guidance on reformation and description sufficiency)
- Aames Funding Corp. v. Henderson, 275 Ga. App. 323 (Ga. App. 2005) (reformation and marketable title principles)
- Truelove v. Buckley, 318 Ga. App. 207 (Ga. App. 2012) (limitations on liens and equitable relief in contract disputes)
- Martin v. Hamilton State Bank, 323 Ga. App. 185 (Ga. App. 2013) (discussion of equity and remedies in conveyancing disputes)