Rearick v. Sieving
103 So. 3d 815
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Rearik (Rearick) and Immanuel Sieving and Jeri Sieving were coterminous landowners in Coffee County, AL.
- In May 2007, Rearick offered to sell her property to the Sievings for $50,000; they accepted.
- Rearick had sold the property to her daughter but remained living there as Zonca’s attorney-in-fact for the real estate transaction.
- At closing (July 31, 2007), the Sievings and Rearick signed an agreement drafted to allow Rearick to live on the residence for her natural life; the agreement was recorded.
- The Sievings later learned Rearick’s family lived at the mobile home, believed that violated the agreement, and sought to collect rent; a life estate dispute arose when a letter claimed Rearick possessed a life-estate interest.
- The trial court held the agreement created a revocable license, terminated the license, and ordered Rearick to vacate; Rearick appealed on several grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parol evidence was properly considered | Rearick argues the agreement language supports a life estate | Sievings contend parol evidence clarifies intent and surrounding circumstances | Parol evidence properly considered; language and circumstances show revocable license |
| Whether the agreement termination and possession restoration were proper | Rearick asserts trial court abused discretion in terminating the agreement | Sievings argue termination aligned with license interpretation | Court affirmed termination and restoration of possession to Sievings |
| Whether the agreement conveyed a life estate or a license | Rearick asserts language conveys life estate | Sievings contend language and drafting show license only | Agreement creates revocable license, not a life estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Estate of Anderson, 966 So.2d 915 (Ala.2007) (interpreting life-estate language; courts consider overall instrument)
- Chancy v. Chancy Lake Homeowners Ass’n, 55 So.3d 287 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (license vs. life estate; intent and language matter)
- Slaten v. Loyd, 282 Ala. 485, 213 So.2d 219 (1968) (subsequent conduct and circumstances may elucidate intent when language is ambiguous)
- Harrell v. McMeans, 598 So.2d 957 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (intent determined from instrument as a whole; finder of fact resolves extent of interest)
- Jeehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Architects & Consulting Eng’rs, 435 So.2d 716 (Ala.1983) (construction of written documents; parol evidence when language ambiguous)