Opinion ID: 1843185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Covenants of Seisen and Power to Sell

Text: First are the covenants of seisin and power to sell. The distinction between these two warranties is largely one of only historical significance. [2] As a practical matter, they are identical in content and scope. See 6A R. Powell, Real Property ¶ 900[2][b] (P. Rohan rev. ed. 1989); 7 G. Thompson, Real Property § 3178 at 242 (1962); see also Howard v. Clanton, 481 So.2d 272, 278 (Miss. 1985) (Robertson, J., dissenting) (citing authorities). The purpose of both is to provide assurance that the grantor has the estate he purports to convey. See Howard, 481 So.2d at 276; Bridges v. Heimburger, 360 So.2d 929, 930 (Miss. 1978). The record before us contains nothing to indicate that Seymour's estate in the property she conveyed was anything less than fee simple absolute. No third party has ever asserted a conflicting claim or interest. More to the point, the Jackson County subdivision regulations did not in any wise diminish Seymour's estate. Accordingly, they cannot be regarded as either a restriction on Seymour's power to sell or as a limitation on the estate with which Seymour was seised. Appellees concede that Seymour's title was impeccable, but they insist that the conveyances nevertheless violated Seymour's warranty of power to sell because Seymour did not have the power to sell land in violation of the county subdivision ordinances. This novel argument must fail for two reasons. First, to define power to sell in such terms expands the scope of the warranty beyond its traditional focus on the estate of the grantor. Secondly, a deed which runs afoul of subdivision regulations is perfectly valid despite the violation. In Sienkiewicz v. Smith, 97 Wash.2d 711, 649 P.2d 112 (1982), a trial court ruled that an earnest money contract was unenforceable since the conveyance it secured would violate a subdivision platting statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington disagreed: Although we have long held that generally an agreement violating a statute or municipal ordinance is void ... [citations omitted], this is not necessarily true where the agreement is neither immoral nor criminal in nature and the statute or ordinance subjects violators merely to a penalty without more... . [Citations omitted]. In Marriott [Financial Services, Inc. v. Capital Funds, Inc., 288 N.C. 122, 217 S.E.2d 551 (1975)], the North Carolina Supreme Court refused to grant rescission to a purchaser on the grounds that the vendor had not complied with a city platting ordinance. In so ruling, the court looked to the language and purpose of the statute and asserted that since the contract was neither immoral nor criminal, the penalty for violation is limited to the penalties expressly provided for in the statute. Rescission was not included among those penalties. Marriott, 288 N.C. at 128-29, 217 S.E.2d at 551... . [Citations omitted]. This sentiment is echoed is echoed in Gilmore v. Hershaw, 83 Wash.2d 701, 521 P.2d 934 (1974), wherein we refused to grant rescission for a violation of [a subdivision statute] on the grounds that the Legislature specifically provided remedies other than rescission for violation of that platting and subdivision statute. Sienkiewicz, 649 P.2d at 115. The holdings of the Washington and North Carolina courts appear to represent the majority view. See, e.g., Stauth v. Brown, 241 Kan. 1, 734 P.2d 1063 (1987); Montagna v. Marston, 24 Md. App. 354, 330 A.2d 502 (Ct.Spec.App. 1975); see also Annotation, Failure of Vendor to Comply with Statute or Ordinance Requiring Approval or Recording of Plat Prior to conveyance of Property as Rendering Sale Void or Voidable, 77 A.L.R.3d 1058 (1977). Further, the propositions set out in Sienkiewicz and Marriott harmonize with this Court's position on analogous points of law. In Rast v. Sorrell, 240 Miss. 333, 127 So.2d 435 (1961), the seller of a pool hall sued for damages after the buyer refused to go through with the contract. The buyer argued that the contract was void since the business had been operated in violation of a licensing statute. We held: The contract here involved is not declared void and unenforceable by the statute. It is not a contract malum in se, it is a contract malum prohibitum, and the penalty, which is alone a criminal penalty, is imposed for the sole purpose of protecting the public revenue. There is no inherent infirmity or illegality in such a contract. The Legislature intended to rely alone on the penalty provided in the statute for the protection of the revenue of the state. Rast, 127 So.2d at 437 (quoting Levinson v. Cox, 127 Miss. 250, 90 So. 1 (1908). We addressed a similar matter in Gardner v. Reed, 207 Miss. 306, 42 So.2d 206 (1949). In Gardner, a buyer defended against the enforcement of a contract for the sale of fertilizer on grounds that the seller, a commercial fertilizer dealer, had not complied with statutory registration, inspection, and notice requirements. In holding for the buyer, we noted that [t]he contract covered the purchase of a lawful commodity, and was not malum in se but merely malum prohibitum. The contract was deemed enforceable since the contract ... was to cover the sale of a commodity, the sale of which is not prohibited by law, and there is no statutory provision declaring such a contact void and unenforceable for failure to comply with the provisions thereof, but makes such failure a criminal offense instead. Gardner, 42 So.2d at 208. Rast and Gardner implicate that the conveyances from Seymour to appellees are valid and enforceable so long as the ordinances they are alleged to violate regulate actions which are merely malum in prohibitum. In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Wagley, 231 So.2d 507 (Miss. 1970), we noted that the violation of a zoning restriction is malum prohibitum so long as the proscribed use does not involve inherent evil. Id. at 509 (citing Nichols on Eminent Domain, Market Value § 12.322[1] (1962). There is nothing inherently evil about selling small tracts of land without platting them and without constructing paved streets for ingress and egress. Accordingly, Seymour's conveyances were not invalid even though they conflicted with Jackson County's subdivision ordinances. There is no question that Seymour had the power to sell the land as she did.