Opinion ID: 2815636
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FEASIBILITY STUDY PERIOD. The purchaser

Text: has a thirty (30) days Feasibility Study Period from the date of this Agreement during which Purchaser can inspect the Property, perform its studies, place financing and perform ministerial duties to settle on the Purchase. During this period, Purchase and its’ [sic] employees, agents or contractors may enter into the Property upon prior notice to the Seller for the purpose of inspecting the Property, performing surveys, studies and ministerial duties it determines are necessary to determine the feasibility of purchasing the Property. Prior to the end of this Period, Purchaser may upon written notice and receipt by Seller or its’ [sic] Agent terminate this Agreement in its’ [sic] sole judgment. . . . D. CONDITION. The property is sold “as is” except for specific representations and warrantees made by the Seller in this contract. The Addendum gave Sahrapour thirty days to inspect the property, Lot 28, and 39 allowed Sahrapour to terminate the agreement whereby the deposit would be returned. Since “approximately 3,027 square feet” is not a “specific representation . . . made by the seller,” the purchase agreement and addendum place the burden of surveying and inspecting the property on the purchaser, Sahrapour. Because Sahrapour did not properly inspect and survey the property, which would have revealed the size discrepancy, she now holds title to a piece of land that may be smaller than what she subjectively intended to purchase. Any additional land acquired through the deed is over and above what the parties intended to transfer. The land purchase agreement stated that she would receive Tax Lot 878 and, given that she signed an addendum which sold the land “as is” and gave her permission to survey and inspect the land, she bore the risk that the “approximately 3,027 square feet” description was not accurate. The fact that Tax Lot 878 is not 3,027 square feet does not create an ambiguity in the description of the property. I would not resort to extrinsic evidence to discern the intent of the parties.5 5 Sahrapour would not acquire the disputed property through the doctrine of equitable conversion because, in my view, the Land Purchase Agreement does not intend to convey the disputed property, and in any event a valid deed was executed. Under the doctrine of equitable conversion, this court “views a contract of sale as immediately vesting the purchaser with beneficial ownership of the realty, and limiting the property interest of the vendor to the promised consideration . . . retaining legal title only as trustee for the purchaser until the 40 Corrected Deed Sahrapour contends that the “corrected” deed reflected a clerical edit because it did not materially alter what was conveyed in the first deed. I do not find that persuasive. A deed is void when the attorney who drafted the deed exceeded his authority under a general power of attorney. Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, 991 A.2d 20, 26-27 (D.C. 2010). A “clerical error” is “[a]n error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence and not from judicial reasoning or determination; [especially] a drafter’s or typist’s technical error that can be rectified without serious doubt about the correct reading.” Black’s Law Dictionary 659 (10th ed. 2014). “Among the numberless examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a document; typing an incorrect number; mistranscribing or omitting an obviously needed word; and failing to log a call.” Id. The inclusion of “ and a portion of Lot 22 as shown on the attached deed of conveyance is delivered.” Trustee 1245 13th St., NW No. 608 Trust v. Anderson, 905 A.2d 181, 184 (D.C. 2006) (emphasis added) (quoting Gustin v. Stegall, 347 A.2d 917, 922 (D.C. 1975)). 41 survey,” changing the Tax ID to include “and a portion of Lot 885,” and attaching a new survey reveals that a labor requiring original thought was needed to arrive at this edit. Merely changing “Lot 877” to “Lot 885” might be a clerical edit, especially considering Lot 887 does not exist, but these intricate edits were not indicative of mere clerical edits. Because Haas exceeded his authority under the Power of Attorney, I would hold that the trial court correctly found the “corrected” deed was void. I respectfully dissent.6 6 Sahrapour has filed a legal malpractice claim against Haas which is stayed pending resolution of the ownership of the disputed alley. Order to Stay, Sahrapour v. Haas, No. 2011 CA 647 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2011).