Title: Batchelor v. Batchelor
Citation: 502 So. 2d 751
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 6, 1987

502 So. 2d 751 (1987)
Patricia F. BATCHELOR
v.
Larry Bruce BATCHELOR.
85-672.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 6, 1987.
*752 John A. Courtney, Mobile, for appellant.
Victor T. Hudson and William W. Watts III of Reams, Vollmer, Philips, Killion, Brooks &amp; Schell, Mobile, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Patricia F. Batchelor, from an order of the Mobile County Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Larry Bruce Batchelor.
Patricia and Larry Batchelor were divorced in 1979. In their divorce decree, Patricia Batchelor was awarded the home of the parties, and Larry Batchelor was ordered to make all the payments on the mortgage thereon.
In 1980, Patricia told Larry that she desired a smaller house; the two thereupon exchanged homes. Patricia received a small house on Lot 55, Camellia Place, that had been purchased earlier that year by Larry, in exchange for the couple's original home.
The deed to the house on Lot 55 evidencing the above exchange provided on its face:
The deed further provided that Larry would remain responsible for payment of the Mobile Federal Savings and Loan mortgage and would hold Patricia harmless and indemnify her for any cost or expense incurred by virtue of any default on the mortgage or the note which it secured.
The deed and mortgage were executed on August 5, 1980, and recorded with the judge of probate on August 12, 1980.
*753 On April 5, 1985, Patricia Batchelor brought this action against her former husband, alleging that at the time of the exchange of houses, nearly five years before, the defendant fraudulently misrepresented the value of the Lot 55 house and fraudulently misrepresented that the Lot 55 house was free and clear of all encumbrances.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. This appeal followed.
It is well established that the buyer of real estate is charged with notice of what appears on the face of the conveyance. Pruitt v. Meadows, 393 So. 2d 986 (Ala.1981); Wittmeir v. Leonard, 219 Ala. 314, 122 So. 330 (1929).
The plaintiff contends that she did not receive a copy of the deed because it was sent to the wrong address; therefore, she says, she was not aware of the misrepresentation at the time of the deed's execution and recordation.
In Stokes v. Bryan, 42 Ala.App. 120, 154 So. 2d 754 (1963), the plaintiffs purchased real estate from the defendant upon a representation by the defendant that he owned the property outright, when in fact he owned only an undivided interest. The court held that the plaintiffs were on constructive notice of the true nature of title to the property by virtue of the recordation of the deeds. Hence, the plaintiffs could not rely on the representations about ownership of the property to support their action for fraud.
In line with these decisions, 54 C.J.S. Limitation of Actions § 189, at 194 (1948), notes:
Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented that the Lot 55 house was free and clear of encumbrances, the plaintiff had constructive knowledge of facts constituting the alleged fraud when the mortgage and deed were recorded on August 12, 1980. Thus, her action for fraud, filed nearly five years later, is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Code 1975, § 6-2-3 and § 6-2-39 (repealed effective 1985).
The plaintiff also contends that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented the value of the Lot 55 house. We have held in a long line of decisions:
Tillis v. Smith Sons Lumber Co., 188 Ala. 122, 133-34, 65 So. 1015, 1018 (1914).
Accordingly, we find that the plaintiff has no cause of action in fraud for defendant's alleged misrepresentation as to the current market value of the Lot 55 home. Moreover, even if plaintiff had an action in fraud for market value misrepresentations, that action would be barred by the statute of limitations.
The one-year statute of limitations began to run from the date the fraud was discovered or the date it should have been discovered. Code 1975, § 6-2-3.
Taylor v. South &amp; N.A.R.R., 13 F. 152 (M.D.Ala.1882).
The plaintiff, as owner of the property for nearly five years prior to commencing this action, most certainly should have been aware of the value of the property before July 1984, the date she contends she became aware.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.