Mike v. Ward v. Carolyn P. Harrell
186 So. 3d 410
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1969 James L. Harrell received land by warranty deed; he executed mineral leases in 1977 and later corrected the property description before conveying the land in 1979.
- On August 18, 1979 James conveyed the parcel to L.L. and Cherry Martin by warranty deed containing the clause: “The Grantee herein retains all mineral rights on said land and property.”
- The Martins later conveyed to Michael and Amy Ward in 1997; the Wards executed a mineral lease in 2007 and began receiving royalties.
- James later conveyed mineral rights (in 2010) to his second wife, Carolyn Harrell, who received royalties; the Wards sued to quiet title and recapture royalties, and Carolyn counterclaimed to reform the 1979 deed in her favor.
- The chancellor reformed the deed to reflect that the grantor (James), not the grantee, retained the minerals; the Wards appealed, arguing the deed’s plain language should stand.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding reformation was supported beyond a reasonable doubt based on mutual mistake and scrivener’s error, though the chancellor had applied an incorrect legal standard for construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wards) | Defendant's Argument (Carolyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor applied correct legal standard | Deed plain and unambiguous; apply rules of construction (Pursue Energy) | Reformation appropriate; deed was erroneous and should be corrected | Chancellor applied Pursue Energy (interpretation) erroneously; appellate court reviews de novo |
| Whether deed is ambiguous | Wards: clause is plain — grantee retains minerals | Carolyn: clause was a drafting error and does not reflect parties’ intent | Court: deed is unambiguous; ambiguity standard not applicable |
| Whether mutual mistake supports reformation | Wards: no mutual intent to reserve minerals to grantor | Carolyn: James intended to retain minerals; facts (prior leases, reservation language in later deed) show mutual mistake | Held: evidence beyond a reasonable doubt supports reformation for mutual mistake |
| Whether scrivener’s error supports reformation | Wards: language as written controls; no scrivener error proven | Carolyn: use of “Grantee” was a drafting error; only a grantor can reserve minerals | Held: evidence beyond a reasonable doubt supports reformation for scrivener’s error (reservation by grantee invalid as matter of law) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 349 (Miss. 1990) (three-step approach for construing ambiguous instruments)
- In re Estate of Summerlin, 989 So. 2d 466 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (reformation standards and burden: mistake must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Bacot v. Duby, 724 So. 2d 410 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (reformation may be granted for mutual mistake or scrivener error)
- Thornhill v. Ford, 56 So. 2d 23 (Miss. 1952) (reservation of minerals can be made only by grantor out of the estate granted)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 652 So. 2d 1113 (Miss. 1995) (legal error by chancellor is reviewed de novo)