223 So. 3d 173
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1999 the Youngs sold a parcel (mobile home + lot); the deed named the grantee as “Merle George Smith.” Gerald Young testified he intended to sell to the tenant (Merle Sr.).
- Merle Jr. funded the purchase by taking a bank loan and giving the money to his father; he claims the deed was meant to be in his name and that he owned the property.
- Merle Sr. occupied the property, paid taxes and utilities, and in March 2011 conveyed the property (reserving a life estate) to his live‑in companion, Carla Pettigrew; Merle Sr. died in 2012.
- Carla continued to occupy the property, paid taxes (redeeming delinquent taxes), recorded title, and presented an unprobated will leaving the trailer and lot to her.
- Merle Jr. sued in chancery court seeking cancellation of Carla’s deed and confirmation of title in himself; the chancellor ruled for Carla finding Merle Jr. failed to deraign title and that the 1999 conveyance was to Merle Sr.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: Merle Jr. lacked standing to seek confirmation (not in possession) and failed to prove perfect title in himself or that the Youngs conveyed to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Pettigrew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff could bring an action to confirm title while not in possession | Merle Jr.: §11‑17‑31 allows a real owner to cancel cloud or confirm title even if not in possession | Carla: §11‑17‑29 governs confirmation actions and requires possession or that property be unoccupied | Held: Plaintiff precluded from confirming title because he did not possess the property and it was occupied by Carla (statute distinction upheld) |
| Whether plaintiff deraigned title (prove perfect title in himself) | Merle Jr.: He provided purchase funds and deed was in his name/address, so he owns title from the Youngs | Carla: Title traces to Merle Sr.; she holds under a subsequent deed from him and Merle Jr. failed to prove chain of title | Held: Merle Jr. failed to deraign title and did not show perfect title in himself; chancellor’s finding that Youngs conveyed to Merle Sr. stands |
| Effect of common source (Youngs) on deraigning requirement | Merle Jr.: Both claim from the Youngs so complete deraignment unnecessary | Carla: Titles arise from different deeds (Youngs→Sr. vs. Youngs→(alleged) Jr.→Sr.→Carla), so common‑source rule doesn’t eliminate plaintiff’s burden | Held: Common source doctrine inapplicable because defendant justifies possession under a different deed; plaintiff must prove his title |
| Credibility / evidentiary weight of testimony about who paid and who was intended grantee | Merle Jr.: Payment and mailing of deed to his address show transaction for his benefit | Carla: Witness testimony (Young, attorney) and possession/tax payments by Sr. and Carla show conveyance to Sr. | Held: Chancellor’s credibility determinations (Young intended sale to Sr.; Merle Jr. never possessed or paid taxes) supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2008) (appellate standard: chancery findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Dixon v. Parker, 831 So. 2d 1202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (confirming title action requires possession or property must be unoccupied)
- Russell v. Town of Hickory, 76 So. 825 (1917) (complainant must deraign title in suits to confirm title or remove clouds)
- Broome v. Jackson, 7 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 1942) (suit to remove clouds may be brought against person in possession)
- Culbertson v. Dixie Oil Co., 467 So. 2d 952 (Miss. 1985) (complainant bears burden of showing perfect title)
- Warren v. Clark, 94 So. 2d 323 (Miss. 1957) (common source rule and its limits in deraignment of title)
- Hughes v. Wilkinson, 28 Miss. 600 (1855) (if defendant holds under a different deed, proof from common source may be destroyed)