Opinion ID: 2739491
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Original 1997 Deed

Text: The circuit court also considered the validity of the original 1997 deed. The 1997 deed mistakenly identified Tract 1 by referring to an unrelated 1929 deed, rather than the 1910 deed set forth in the Will of G. W. Cook. Rejecting the mistake as surplusage, the circuit court found that the 1997 deed sufficiently established that the property Gene Cook conveyed to himself was the same 1/5 interest George P. Cook inherited through the Will of G. W. Cook. 12 The identification of Tract 1 by referring to an unrelated 1929 deed is not surplusage. However, the defective reference identifying Tract 1 is deprived of significance by the following language included in the 1997 deed: And, being the same property, one fifth (1/5) interest, inherited by Grantor, George Posey Cook, under the provision of The Last Will and Testament of [G. W. Cook], duly of probate in the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Wyoming County, West Virginia, a copy of the Will which is hereby attached for purposes of reference.5 (Emphasis added). The language in the Will of G. W. Cook, which was attached to the 1997 deed, included the acreage and a correct deed reference for Tract 1. The Will was attached to the deed when it was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission. The accuracy of the descriptions in G. W. Cook’s Will have not been challenged and constitute a proper identification for the tracts conveyed.6 See Southern v. Sine, 95 W.Va. 634, 638, 123 S.E. 436, 437 (1924) (A reference in two deeds to a Will for a “more particular description” of the land sold was a factor in determining whether the conveyances were in gross or by the acre.). See also McQueen v. Ahbe, 99 W.Va. 650, 655, 130 S.E. 261, 263 5 The appendix record to this Court contained an incomplete copy of the 1997 deed. None of the parties saw fit to include the entire deed, which had attached the Will of G.W. Cook. However, the Clerk of this Court obtained a complete copy of the 1997 deed for our review. See West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 6 [2010]. 6 See Vol. 2, G. P. Smith, Jr., Harrison on Wills and Administration for Virginia and West Virginia, § 305 (3rd ed. 1986) (discussing the sufficiency of descriptions of real property in Wills). 13 (1925) (A description can be determined by the deed “or other writing.”). As syllabus point 1 of Jones v. Gibson, 118 W.Va. 66, 188 S.E. 773 (1936), holds: “A deed will not be declared void for uncertainty if it is possible, by any reasonable rules of construction, to ascertain from the description, aided by extrinsic evidence, what property it is intended to convey.” Accord Consol. Coal Co. v. Mineral Coal Co., 147 W.Va. 130, 143, 126 S.E.2d 194, 202 (1962). Further assistance in this area of the law is found in Thomas v. Young, 93 W.Va. 555, 117 S.E. 909 (1923), syllabus point 2 of which states: Where reference is made in a deed, containing only a general description of land, to another deed, which contains a description by metes and bounds, for the purpose of describing the land intended to be conveyed, it has the same effect as if such particular description in the deed referred to were incorporated in the deed in which the reference is made. See also, J. W. Fisher, II, The Scope of Title Examination in West Virginia: Can Reasonable Minds Differ?, 98 W.Va. L. Rev. 449, 485 (1996); and J. W. Fisher, II, The Scope of Title Examinations in West Virginia Revisited, 111 W.Va. L. Rev. 641, 674 (2009) (when the description or identification in a deed includes key or foundation words, such as a reference to the source of title, certainty in the description of the land to be conveyed may be attained with the aid of evidence outside the deed). Accordingly, the circuit court correctly determined that Tract 1 was adequately identified in the 1997 deed. The circuit court was correct in finding the deed was not invalid 14 or void because of a defective description or identification of the property conveyed. The identity of Tract 1 was made clear by the Will attached to the 1997 deed.