Court Opinion

ID: 9671230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:33:11.471368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:08.504058
License: Public Domain

*444LAWSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Coleman hut would like to make further observations.
As early as 1842, in the case of Cullum v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 4 Ala. 21, this court recognized the distinction between executory and executed contracts for the sale of realty in regard to implied warranties. In the case last cited it was observed :
“Such are the rights of a purchaser when he has made no stipulations with respect to the title; but there is a period when the contract of the parties is determined by its execution on the part of the vendor, and then the rule of caveat emptor applies with its utmost rigor. This period is when the conveyance has been executed by all the necessary parties, and accepted by the purchaser; after this, if the purchaser is evicted by a title to which his covenants do not extend, he cannot recover the purchase money, either at law or in equity. * * * ”
In Asbury v. Cochran, 243 Ala. 281, 283, 9 So.2d 887, 889, decided in 1942 in an opinion prepared for the court by the late Mr. Justice Foster, it was said:
“The general rule is that in the absence of stipulations to the contrary, every contract for the sale of real estate implies that a good title will be made. Kirkland v. O’Kelly, 218 Ala. 68, 117 So. 420; Baker v. Howison, supra [213 Ala. 41, 104 So. 239, 52 A.L.R. 1452],
“This applies to an executory contract for the purchase and sale of real estate and is given by law, and exists until the contract has been performed by the execution of a deed. When that is done the purchaser must rely on the warranty in his deed; and if there is none, the rule of caveat emptor applies. * * (Emphasis supplied.)
In 92 C.J.S. Vendor and Purchaser § 183 (b), page 15, it is said:
“In most jurisdictions the implied warranty of title which exists when the contract of sale is executory is held not to exist when the contract has been executed by the delivery and acceptance of the deed of conveyance, hut in such case the vendor is liable, in the absence of fraud or mistake, only on the covenants contained in the deed, it being assumed that, if the purchaser desires to-protect himself from a defective title, he will have proper covenants inserted in the deed, and, if he does not, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies and he is without remedy.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The case of Asbury v. Cochran, supra,, is cited in support of the language which we have italicized above.
I recognize that the authorities herein-above referred to deal with the question-of title and not with the condition of a structure on real estate; but the rule applies across the board in my opinion and it was so held in the Druid Homes case-decided in 1961 and followed in Livingston v. Bedford in 1969. The Druid Homes case and Livingston v. Bedford are both cited in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Coleman. The Court of Civil Appeals and this court have now cast into the judicial wastebasket two cases, directly in point, decided by this court within the past ten years, apparently on the theory that “Most scholars question the retention of” the “doctrine of caveat emptor in real estate sales.” The legal scholars to whom reference is made apparently are the writers of articles appearing in the legal periodicals cited in the court’s opinion.
I do not believe that the court’s opinion is in harmony with the holdings of the majority of courts in this country (25 A.L.R.3d 383) and yet we are in a more or less cavalier manner departing from principles long embedded in the jurisprudence of this state and which, in my opinion, will create confusion, doubt, and uncertainty in real estate transactions.
The author of the court’s opinion recognizes that many questions will have to be *445answered in future litigation because of the action taken by the court in this case, thereby confronting the seller, the buyer, the practicing attorney, and the trial bench with innumerable problems at which guesses must be made pending future decisions by this court.
The purchaser of a new home may protect himself by requiring covenants in the deed concerning the construction of the house which he is purchasing in the same manner as he must do in order to protect himself in regard to title.