Case Name: DODSON v. PHAGAN
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1971-04-08
Citations: 227 Ga. 480
Docket Number: 26294
Parties: DODSON v. PHAGAN.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Grice, and Felton, JJ., who dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 227
Pages: 480–484

Head Matter:
26294.
DODSON v. PHAGAN.
Argued March 8, 1971
Decided April 8, 1971
Rehearing denied April 22, 1971.
William E. Smith, for appellant.
Telford, Stewart & Stephens, Jeff C. Wayne, J. Douglas Stewart, C. E. Smith, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
The question here is whether parol evidence was admissible to show that the consideration of a deed, recited to be for natural love and affection, was the grantee's promise to pay certain expenses of the grantor and his wife.
This question arose from an action filed in the Superior Court of Sumter County by the grantor in the deed, H. T. Phagan, against the grantee, Annie Mae Dodson and another party subsequently eliminated, seeking thereafter only recovery of damages for breach of her alleged promise to pay the expenses of his wife's last illness and burial and of a cemetery monument for her. The defendant grantee denied any such promise.
Upon the trial the plaintiff grantor and others over objections were allowed to testify that the consideration of the deed in question, while reciting "natural love and affection," was in fact the defendant grantee's prior promise to pay such expenses of his wife, above recited, and also of himself. There was no issue as to fraud, accident or mistake. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff grantor and judgment was entered thereon.
The defendant grantee appeáled to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the evidence was admissible.
Thereupon, the defendant grantee by application for writ of certiorari sought review as to this evidentiary question. We granted the application.
The Court of Appeals held in material part as follows: "This testimony was admissible as the consideration having been ex pressed merely by way of recital in the deed, parol evidence is admissible to show that the real consideration is different from that expressed. Cottle v. Tomlinson, 192 Ga. 704 (4) (16 SE2d 555). The Supreme Court held in Thompson v. Cody, 100 Ga. 771 (3) (28 SE 669) and Farrar Lumber Co. v. Brindle, 170 Ga. 37 (3) (151 SE 923) that where love and affection is expressed as the consideration in a deed, a money or other valuable consideration may be shown by parol evidence." Dodson v. Phagan, 122 Ga. App. 752 (178 SE2d 748).
We regard this holding as erroneous.
The decisions cited therein are distinguishable and do not sustain the holding.
While "The consideration of a deed may always be inquired into when the principles of justice require it," (Code § 29-101), that rule is not applicable here because such testimony would violate the parol evidence rule (Code § 38-501).
We regard as controlling here the decisions of Stonecypher v. Ga. Power Co., 183 Ga. 498 (189 SE 13); Cottle v. Tomlinson, 192 Ga. 704, supra; Awtrey v. Awtrey, 225 Ga. 666 (171 SE2d 126) and the principles they enunciate.
In the Stonecypher case, the grantor in a deed stating a monetary consideration sought to show by parol that the grantee also promised to purchase adjoining property at a specified price should the grantor elect to sell it later. This court, upon certified question, held that this could not be shown.
Headnote 3 of that case is as follows: "As between the parties to the contract the consideration of a deed may always be inquired into where the principles of justice require it, provided that the consideration is expressed only by way of recital, and not in such a way as to make it one of the terms and conditions of the instrument. When expressed only by way of recital, parol evidence is admissible to show that the true consideration of the deed is in fact different from the one stated merely by way of recital. However, one of the parties to a deed cannot, under the guise of inquiring into its consideration, engraft upon the instrument a new condition or covenant which imposes an additional affirmative obligation upon the other party. Therefore, a suit for damages or for breach of an oral agreement cannot be maintained, where, in or der to establish such agreement, it is necessary to vary the terms of a deed by imposing additional affirmative obligations upon one of the parties to the instrument."
Division 3 of the opinion in the Stonecypher case elaborates upon this headnote and provides supporting citations.
In the Cottle case, 192 Ga. 704, 712, supra, this court stated the principle that, "Where the consideration is so expressed as to make it one of the terms and conditions of the deed, one of the parties thereto cannot, under the guise of inquiring into its consideration, alter the terms of the instrument," citing cases including Stonecypher v. Ga. Power Co., 183 Ga. 498, supra. The Cottle case then held that the parol evidence there, which sought to cast the burden of payment upon the defendant when the deed imposed it upon the plaintiff, was not admissible since it varied the terms of the deed.
In the Awtrey case, 225 Ga. 666, supra, the grantor sought to show that in addition to the monetary consideration recited in the deed, the grantee really promised to pay to her one-half of the net proceeds of the property when it was ultimately sold. This court held that this could not be shown, quoting the foregoing headnote of the Stonecypher case and stating that "The complainant in the present case sought to engraft upon her written quitclaim deed an oral contract which would impose an additional affirmative obligation upon the defendant, the grantee in the deed."
In the instant case the enforcement of the alleged parol promise, payment for expenses of last illness, burial and cemetery monument, would impose additional affirmative obligations upon the grantee of the deed. The testimony should not have been admitted.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
All the Justices concur, except Grice, and Felton, JJ., who dissent.