Felicia Thrift and Jeffery Landrum v. Charles Sparks (Appeal from Clay Circuit Court: CV-22-900048).
CL-2024-0277
Ala. Civ. App.Mar 21, 2025Background
- Charles Sparks (the grantor) sold a parcel of real property in Cragford, Alabama to Jeffery Landrum for $200,000, below its alleged market value, with Felicia Thrift later receiving Landrum's interest.
- A contemporaneous written agreement gave Sparks the right to occupy the residence for life (so long as it remained his primary residence) and exclusive personal use of a cottage at Alabama Gold Camp, along with rights to listed personal property.
- Sparks claimed Landrum and Thrift interfered with his occupancy and tried to evict him post-sale, seeking damages and equitable relief; the grantees counterclaimed asserting Sparks' rights were only a revocable license and that he had converted grantees' property.
- The trial court ruled Sparks effectively retained a life estate in the property and reformed the deed to reflect this, ordering Thrift to execute a new life estate deed for Sparks, and awarded Sparks $13,260 in damages for loss of use of the Gold Camp cottage.
- Landrum and Thrift appealed, challenging both the declaration of a life estate/reformation and the damages awarded for the cottage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the agreement reserve Sparks a life estate or a personal right (license) to occupy the residence? | Sparks: Agreement intended to reserve a life estate for his lifetime. | Landrum/Thrift: Agreement created only a personal license, not a life estate. | Court: Agreement did not create a life estate; only a personal, non-transferable license. |
| Was it proper to reform the deed to include a life estate for Sparks? | Sparks: Deed should be reformed to reflect true intent (life estate). | Landrum/Thrift: No intent or legal basis to reform the deed for a life estate. | Court: Reformation improper due to lack of fraud, mutual mistake, or evidence of intent. |
| Was Sparks entitled to damages for loss of Gold Camp cottage use? | Sparks: Entitled to damages for loss of exclusive cottage use per contract. | Landrum/Thrift: Damages excessive or not substantiated by Sparks' actual use. | Court: Damages award affirmed as reasonable for breach of contractual right. |
| Did the grantor's right to occupy constitute an irrevocable license due to below-market sale? | Sparks: Right was irrevocable because consideration was lower sale price. | Landrum/Thrift: License was personal, revocable, and limited as per agreement language. | Court: Did not reach this issue as it was not ruled on below; no new grounds to affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rearick v. Sieving, 103 So. 3d 815 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (collateral agreement to occupy residence generally creates a license, not a life estate, without explicit language or intent)
- Fadalla v. Fadalla, 929 So. 2d 429 (Ala. 2005) (standard for reformation: clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake or fraud required)
- Beasley v. Mellon Fin. Servs. Corp., 569 So. 2d 389 (Ala. 1990) (reformation is not authorized to create new contracts or unless strict standards are met)
- Miller v. Davis, 423 So. 2d 1354 (Ala. 1982) (deed not subject to reformation absent evidence of contrary intent or inequitable conduct)
- Thrasher v. Thrasher, 169 So. 3d 1043 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (life estate is generally a marketable, transferable interest).