Case Title: Kipp v. Chips Estate

Citation: 169 Vt. 102, 732 A.2d 127

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Kipp v. Chips Estate; 169 Vt. 102; 732 A.2d 127

[Filed 26-Feb-1999]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the  Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                      
                                 No. 97-279
                                                              

June Kipp	                         Supreme Court

	                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                         Windham Superior Court

Ervin W. Chips Estate	                 January Term, 1999

Richard W. Norton, J.

Lance C. Shader, Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard M. Gale of Gale & Corum, Brattleboro, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   This dispute over the language in a deed requires us to
  decide whether  the co-owners of a parcel of land in Newfane held the
  property as joint tenants with a right of  survivorship so that the death
  of a co-owner extinguished the interest of his heirs in the realty. 
  Concluding that the deed created a tenancy in common, the superior court
  awarded an undivided  one-half interest to defendant, the estate of
  co-owner Ervin W. Chips.  Plaintiff and co-owner  June Kipp appeals,
  contending that the deed provides for a joint tenancy or, alternatively,
  that  the deed is ambiguous such that the court should have admitted parol
  evidence to resolve the  ambiguity.  We affirm.

       The following facts, as found by the Windham Superior Court, are not
  in dispute.  On 

 

  August 7, 1987, plaintiff acquired her interest in the property through a
  warranty deed conveying  the land from Byllee Lloyd Gould to Ervin W. Chips
  and June Kipp.  The granting clause of the  deed provided that Gould was
  conveying the property to "Ervin W. Chips and June Kipp, joint  tenants,
  and their heirs and assigns forever."  The habendum clause,(FN1) however,
  described  the grantees as "tenants in common, and their heirs and
  assigns."

       Chips died on October 5, 1994.  On January 21, 1997, plaintiff filed a
  complaint in the  Windham Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment
  that the deed created a joint tenancy  and, therefore, that Chips' son and
  heir had no interest in the property upon his father's death.   Relying
  solely on the language of the deed, and the argument and submissions of
  counsel, the  Windham Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the
  estate.  The court determined that the  language of the deed fully
  expressed the intention of the grantor and, therefore, that the court did 
  not have to look beyond the four corners of the instrument.  The court then
  ruled that the  habendum clause of the deed clarified the granting clause
  and created a tenancy in common.

       Plaintiff's main argument is that the dispute should have been
  resolved based on the rule  of deed construction that the wording of the
  granting clause controls over the wording of the  habendum clause when
  there is a conflict between them.  In plaintiff's view, the granting clause 
  of the deed clearly conveys a joint tenancy, while the habendum clearly
  conveys a tenancy in  common.  Since the clauses are in conflict, plaintiff
  argues that the granting clause must control 

 

  and the deed therefore conveys a joint tenancy.  For four reasons, we do
  not find this argument  persuasive in resolving this case.

       First, in interpreting a deed, we look to the language of the written
  instrument because it  is assumed to declare the intent of the parties. 
  See Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow,  164 Vt. 447, 451,