Opinion ID: 2543629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deed Failing to Close

Text: ¶ 26 The trial court concluded that the Ault deed failed to convey title to the Aults when its legal description set forth therein was indefinite because it failed to close. In Utah, a warranty deed conveys title so long as the deed's description of the property is  sufficiently definite . . . to identify the property it conveys. Colman v. Butkovich, 556 P.2d 503, 505 (Utah 1976) (emphasis added). In other words: The fact that parts of the description given of the property are incorrect or incomprehensible will not destroy the operative effect of a conveyance, if a sufficient part of the description remains for purposes of identification. In such cases the misdescription will be ignored and the land held to be sufficiently described. The test is said to be whether a surveyor or engineer with the deed before him and with or without the aid of extrinsic evidence can locate the land and establish the boundaries. 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 54 (1983) (emphasis added). ¶ 27 In this case, surveyors prepared four different surveys based upon the Ault deed: the Rosenberg survey, the Bullen survey, the Jensen survey, and the survey prepared for the Aults' previous litigation. In each, the surveyors were able to identify the Ault property and establish the boundaries thereof pursuant to the legal description set forth in the Ault deed, including the boundary between the Ault and Holden properties. ¶ 28 While it is undisputed that the distance measurement of the final call of the legal description in the Ault deed does not extend to the point of beginning so as to close, the deed did not fail to convey the north lot to the Aults. In the construction of boundaries, we ... find that the intention of the parties is the controlling consideration. Losee v. Jones, 120 Utah 385, 395, 235 P.2d 132, 137 (1951); see also Cornish Town v. Koller, 758 P.2d 919, 921 (Utah 1988). Indeed, we held in Losee that a deed sufficiently describing property conveys the property intended to be conveyed, although the description does not close according to the distance measurement articulated in the final call, so long as the intention is clear from the deed. 120 Utah at 394-96, 235 P.2d at 137. ¶ 29 In Losee, the final distance call of the property description failed to return to the point of beginning; that call concluded with thence east 2.5 chains more or less to place of beginning. 120 Utah at 395, 235 P.2d at 137. We held that such a description sufficiently described the property because the intention [of the grantor was for] the tract [to] close by extending the final call to place of beginning, and the words `more or less' constitute a tolerance factor which enables this extension of the final distance, beyond the 2.5 chains, in order that the tract close. Id. ¶ 30 The language of the legal description in the Ault deed parallels the language of the legal description at issue in Losee. Here, the description culminates with the phrase thence south 1.77 chains to the place of beginning, containing approximately 17 acres. As in Losee, this description concludes with to the place of beginning, manifesting the grantor's intent that the description close at the point where the legal description began. Id. Further, the property description in the Ault deed concluded with the phrase containing approximately 17 acres (emphasis added), which serves as a tolerance factor [that] enables the extension of the final distance so that the deed closes. 120 Utah at 395, 235 P.2d at 137. Therefore, surveyors were able to identify the Ault property although they had to extrapolate the final call to the place of beginning, closing the legal description and effectuating the intent of the grantors. Because surveyors can identify the Ault property according to the deed's legal description, the Ault deed is sufficient to convey the property described.