Opinion ID: 2601925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Construing the Deeds

Text: [¶ 7] In Ecosystem Resources v. Broadbent Land & Resources, 2007 WY 87, ¶¶ 9-10, 158 P.3d 685, 688 (Wyo.2007) we summarized the deed interpretation process: ... Our deed interpretation rules focus on deriving the intentions of the parties. Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 2006 WY 14, ¶ 22, 126 P.3d 909, 919 (Wyo. 2006); Caballo Coal Co. v. Fid. Exploration & Prod. Co., 2004 WY 6, ¶ 11, 84 P.3d 311, 314 (Wyo.2004). We start with the language utilized by the parties to the deed, giving that language its plain and ordinary meaning. Hickman v. Groves, 2003 WY 76, ¶ 6, 71 P.3d 256, 258 (Wyo. 2003). If the language is clear and unambiguous, we look only to the four corners of the deed in ascertaining the parties' intent. Caballo Coal, ¶ 11, 84 P.3d at 314. However, we have also recognized that, even if a contract is unambiguous, we can examine evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed to arrive at the parties' intent. Hickman, ¶¶ 6-11, 71 P.3d at 257-58. Relevant considerations may include the relationship of the parties, the subject matter of the contract, and the parties' purpose in making the contract. Id. [I]t has long been the law that we look to the meaning of terms at the time of execution of an unambiguous deed. In 1899, we stated in Balch [ v. Arnold ], 9 Wyo. [17] at 29, 59 P. [434] at 436 [(1899)]: The rule in such cases [involving deed interpretation] is that the intention of the parties is to be ascertained by considering all the provisions of the deed, as well as the situation of the parties, and then to give effect to such intention if practicable. (emphasis added). Understanding the importance of the use of surrounding circumstances evidence is not difficult when you take into account the definition of plain meaning as used in contract interpretation cases. The plain meaning [of a contract's language] is that `meaning which [the] language would convey to reasonable persons at the time and place of its use.' Newman [ v. RAG Wyoming Land Co. ], [2002 WY 132,] ¶ 12, 53 P.3d at 544, quoting Moncrief v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, 861 P.2d 516, 524 (Wyo.1993) (emphasis added). Mullinnix, ¶ 23, 126 P.3d at 919. [¶ 8] Here, the grantor, apparently acting without legal advice, attempted to create a tenancy by the entireties in his son and daughter, but he also used the words with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common. It is apparent that the grantor made a mistake and not a mistake such as is contemplated by a technical view of the term mistake. See 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds §§ 184-191 (2002 and Supp.2008). Rather, we think the deed on its face evidences a mistake as that term is used in common parlance: mistake, 2: a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention: an unintentional error. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1446 (1986). Moreover, a joint tenancy can only be created by an act of the parties, but a joint tenancy may also be the result of an attempt to create an impossible tenancy by the entirety. 20 Am.Jur.2d. Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 11 (2005 Supp.2008). Furthermore, 41 Am.Jur.2d Husband and Wife § 41 (2005 and Supp. 2008) explains: A Tenancy in common may be the end result of error or mistake, or of an ineffective attempt to create a tenancy by the entireties. Thus, it is generally held that a conveyance to parties mistakenly believed to be husband and wife, presumably as tenants by entirety, results in the creation of a tenancy in common, although a joint tenancy is sometimes held to have been created. [¶ 9] We conclude that the deed at issue here was not ambiguous when all of its language is read together because tenancy in common is forthrightly eliminated. See Wendy Evans Lehmann, Annotation, 9 A.L.R.4th 1189, Estate Created by Deed to Persons Described as Husband and Wife but not Legally Married, esp. § 4[b] and [c](1981 and Supp.2008); Morgan v. Morgan, 111 A.D.2d 790, 490 N.Y.S.2d 539, 540 (1985); Wood v. Wood, 264 Ark. 304, 571 S.W.2d 84, 85 (1978); Beaton v. LaFord, 79 Mich.App. 373, 261 N.W.2d 327, 328 (1978); Coleman v. Jackson, 286 F.2d 98, 99-103 (D.C.Cir.1960). For these reasons, we hold that the district court erred in treating the Exhibit 1 Deed as creating a tenancy in common. That portion of the district court's judgment is reversed, and we remand to the district court to enter a judgment reflecting that after the death of her brother, Dickson is now the sole owner of the land described in the Exhibit 1 Deed. [¶ 10] We begin our further analysis by noting that Wyo. Stat. Ann § 34-1-140 (LexisNexis 2007) provides: A joint tenancy or a tenancy by the entirety as to any interest in real or personal property may be established by the owner thereof, by designating in the instrument of conveyance or transfer, the names of such joint tenants or tenants by the entirety, including his own, without the necessity of any transfer or conveyance to or through a third person. [¶ 11] With respect to the Exhibit 2 Deed we think the circumstances are different. That deed does not describe the sort of tenancy that was intended. The statute cited above reflects a legislative intention that joint tenancies and tenancies by the entireties are created by the use of one or the other of those phrases. Of course, there may be circumstances where such silence as to the nature of the tenancy could be further explained by other words, or other circumstances, but here there is nothing more for us to consider but the words that actually are in the Exhibit 2 Deed. Since there is no apparent intention to create a tenancy by the entireties (which would fail in any event), and no apparent intention to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, by default we must assume that a tenancy in common was intended. See generally, W.W. Allen, Annotation, What Constitutes a Devise or Bequest in Joint Tenancy Notwithstanding Statute Raising a Presumption Against Joint Tenancy, 46 A.L.R.2d 523 (1956 and Blue Book 2005). Thus, we affirm the district court's order to the extent that it settled the ownership of the Exhibit 2 Deed property in Dickson and Thomas's estate as tenants in common. [¶ 12] It would be speculation to attempt to divine why Dickson's and Thomas's parents opted for such an arrangement. However, we see no readily apparent reason to treat those dispositions as illogical. In Thomas's brief it is suggested that the Exhibit 2 Deed, which describes an approximately one-acre parcel that included the family home and its curtilage, may divide the family home, with part of the house in the larger parcel (the Exhibit 1 Deed) and the other half in the smaller parcel (the Exhibit 2 Deed). If that is indeed the case, it would be our hope that the family can work that out amicably and without further judicial intervention so that the ancestral home can be enjoyed by all entitled to its use and possession.