Opinion ID: 1141909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in its interpretation of the legal effect of the words reversionary interest, following the expressed intention of the grantor?

Text: The McII heirs and assigns seem to argue that the Chancellor ignored the language expressing McII's intent to reserve and retain their reversionary interest. The argument appears to be as follows. The phrase their reversionary interest must refer to something; therefore, it refers to the only interest McII had, a remainder in the 1/2 mineral interest. The language must refer to some interest owned by McII, and that the only interest which McII owned was the remainder in the 1/2 mineral interest. The McII heirs and assigns, however, ignore an important fact: McII did not own a reversionary interest; therefore, this reference to an interest which McII did not own would appear to create an ambiguity, which  according to the familiar rule  must be construed against the grantor, McII.