Opinion ID: 1271967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1943 Documents Conveyed Real Property

Text: The superior court found that the 1943 deeds were intended to convey to sons Thomas and David a one-third interest each in the property, including land, used in the operation of the Cape Smythe Whaling and Trading Co. This determination is supported by the facts and case law. The superior court found that the deeds followed the format customarily used in rural Alaska for the conveyance of real property. The form of each deed closely adhered to the then existing statutory requirement pertaining to conveyances of real property. At that time, Section 22-3-9 ACLA 1949 required that deeds be executed in the presence of two witnesses, who were then required to sign the deed. [12] Each deed complied with this requirement. The documents contain additional attributes of a deed. For example, they are entitled deeds; they contain a habendum clause, [13] characteristic of real property conveyances; [14] they specifically describe certain buildings; and they contain language typically indicative of deeds, e.g., grant, [15] appurtenances, [16] and premises. [17] An instrument in the form of a deed is presumed to be a deed, and this presumption is strengthened by the presence of attestation which occurred here, 3 American Law of Property § 12.97, at 394 (A. Casner ed. 1974). This strong presumption, and the foregoing facts support the superior court's conclusion that a conveyance of real property was intended. Appellants strongly urge that the deeds are mere bills of sale and do not convey real property. A similar argument was rejected in Pottkamp v. Buss, 3 Cal. Unrep.Cas. 694, 31 P. 1121, 1122 (1892). In that case, the court construed a conveyance of a store, ... and the bakery attached thereto to convey the named buildings, the land on which they stood, and so much of the surrounding land owned by the grantor as was necessary for the ordinary use of the buildings. [18] We hold that a conveyance of title to named buildings can convey title to subjacent and adjacent realty. Thus, where an intention to do so is established, undescribed land may be conveyed when it is incidental or appurtenant to the grant. Seefus v. Briley, 185 Neb. 202, 174 N.W.2d 339, 343 (1970). E.g., Black v. Ervin, 132 Ind. App. 470, 176 N.E.2d 142, 144 (1961) (lease or deed of a building includes adjacent land of the lessor or grantor which is used with the building or is necessary to its proper occupation for the intended purpose); Tadlock v. Mizell, 195 N.C. 473, 142 S.E. 713, 714 (1928) (conveyance of house conveyed the building, lot, and outbuildings customarily used in connection with the residence); Bogard v. Barhan, 56 Or. 269, 108 P. 214, 216 (1910) (conveyance of the brick store building conveyed both the building and underlying, though undescribed, land); Wade v. Odle, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 656, 54 S.W. 786, 788 (1899) (to same effect). [19] Appellants cite Noland v. Coon, 1 Alaska 36, 38 (1890) as contrary authority. In that case a water right was held not appurtenant to the conveyance of certain mining grounds. The court noted that a conveyance of the land which itself carried the water would include, as incidental or appurtenant, the right to such water. But in Noland, where the water was appropriated from other land, mere conveyance of the benefitted land did not also impliedly convey a right to the appropriated water. Moreover, the court in Noland noted that a water right is separate and apart from the mining property it is used for. Id. at 38-39. The unique facts of that case make it inapposite to the issues involved here.