Opinion ID: 2630648
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conveyance

Text: ¶ 24 Arnold argues that the 1991 corrective warranty deed was ineffective to grant an easement because the deed lacks the necessary statutory language to effectuate a conveyance in 1991. This argument, however, fails to apprehend the function of a corrective or confirmation deed. 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds § 11 (2002), under the heading Confirmation deed, states that [t]he purpose of a correction deed is to admit mutual error and change the original instrument to conform to the true intent of the parties. A mistake in the omission of parties may be corrected by a deed of correction to effectuate the intention of the parties. The 1983 edition of 23 Am.Jur.2d provides a more complete explanation of the manner in which a deed and a corrective deed operate together as one valid conveyance. A deed of confirmation may be appropriately utilized in order to remove doubts as to the operativeness of a prior deed to convey title to the land intended.... [T]he two deeds, taken together, will operate to pass the title to the grantee named therein. The correction deed need not restate all material portions of the deed being corrected if such portions contain no errors. 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 333 (1983). ¶ 25 Therefore, because the 1982 warranty deed and the 1991 corrective warranty deed functioned together, according to the intention of the grantors, to validly create and convey a right-of-way over the Arnold Property for the benefit of the Love Property, the language of conveyance in the 1982 warranty deed was sufficient for both.