Opinion ID: 1233787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lot 9 and Lot 10 Were Conveyed by Common Grantor.

Text: The Petersons first assign that the district court erred in applying the common grantor rule because Lots 9 and 10 were not conveyed by a common grantor. While Lot 10 was conveyed to Huffman by one grantorJamesthe Petersons assert that Lot 9 was conveyed to the Petersons by three separate grantorsJames, James' father, and Pioneer Partners. Thus, according to the Petersons, the common grantor doctrine does not apply because the grantor of Lot 9 was not the same as the grantor of Lot 10. Huffman argues that Lot 9 was conveyed to the Petersons by James, just as Lot 10 was conveyed to Huffman by James. Huffman asserts that James developed the properties at issue and constructed Huffman's driveway prior to conveying a life estate interest in Lot 9 to James' father and that, thus, the common grantor rule is not precluded by the interest later acquired by James' father. In addition, Huffman argues that because James was the sole partner in Pioneer Partners at the time of the conveyance of Lot 9, the partnership was not a separate entity or grantor in the conveyance. James and Kerrey originally acquired title to the property at issue in the name of their partnership, Pioneer Partners, and later, James became the sole partner in Pioneer Partners and acquired sole ownership of the property at issue through an assignment and quitclaim deed from Kerrey. Thus, James acquired Lots 9 and 10 in the same transaction. Subsequently, James conveyed Lot 9 to the Petersons, naming as grantor himself, individually, and as partner of Pioneer Partners. Several years later, James conveyed Lot 10 to Huffman, naming only himself, individually, as grantor. Based on these facts, the Petersons argue that the lots were not conveyed by the same grantor. However, in applying the common grantor rule, the focus is on unity of title. If title to the property is actually held by the same party, the name in which such party conveys the property is irrelevant. In other words, James acquired ownership of the two parcels at issue in the same transaction, in the same name. Equity looks through form to substance. Thus, a court of equity goes to the root of the matter and is not deterred by form. See Dillon Tire, Inc. v. Fifer, 256 Neb. 147, 589 N.W.2d 137 (1999). Even though James ultimately drafted the conveyance documents using different languageone in his name alone, and one in his name along with the name of his partnershipthe lots were owned by him in the same capacity. Thus, the language of the deed documents does not prevent proper application of the common grantor rule. Furthermore, Lots 9 and 10 were originally owned by James in their entirety, giving him the power to determine the location of the boundary between the properties. The fact that James conveyed a life estate interest in Lot 9 to his father prior to conveying complete ownership of Lot 9 to the Petersons does not change the fact that James was the common grantor of the two parcels because James owned both parcels before conveying any interest at all. For example, the common grantor rule could have applied had James conveyed a fee simple title in Lot 9 to his father, making his father the original grantee under the common grantor rule; similarly, the common grantor rule would have applied if James had not conveyed any interest in Lot 9 to his father, making the Petersons the original grantees under the rule. It would make little sense to refuse to apply the doctrine to facts presenting an initial conveyed interest that lies between those situations. All that matters for purposes of determining whether a common grantor is present is whether that grantor held title to both disputed parcels, such that the grantor had the power to establish the boundary between the two parcels. Here, James held title to Lot 9 in fee simple before conveying a life estate to his father, but retained a remainder interest. James conveyed that remainder interest directly to the Petersons and also sold the life estate on his father's behalf. The Petersons' unified title to Lot 9 came from both James and James' father, but part of that titlethe remainder interestwas conveyed directly from James. On the whole, the purchase was effectively negotiated and completed as a conveyance from James to the Petersons. Most important, the nature of the Petersons' purchase was such that James was in a position to establish the boundaries of the property, and the Petersons were in the position of relying on James' description of the boundary. The fact that James' father first held part of the title to Lot 9 does not change the fact that the Petersons were the original grantees of the remainder of the title, and the first to obtain a unified title subsequent to James. The intent of the common grantor doctrine is to give effect to the original grantor's representation of the boundary to property. Based on this evidence, the district court did not err in concluding that James was a common grantor with respect to his conveyance to the Petersons. The Petersons' first assignment of error is without merit.