Court Opinion

ID: 9682155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:06:10.827536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.716196
License: Public Domain

WILHOIT, Chief Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority but do not agree that we are dealing with a right of re-entry in this case. The deed from Mr. and Mrs. Bird to Mr. Dennis *490and his daughter created nothing more than an option, personal to Mr. Bird, to repurchase upon certain conditions being met. The agreement which is being enforced is that contained in the deed. The law is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the grantor in a deed, not the grantee, is, for purposes of the statute of frauds, the “party to be charged.” See City of Murray v. Crawford, 138 Ky. 25, 127 S.W. 494 (1910); Duteil v. Mullins, 192 Ky. 616, 234 S.W. 192 (1921). Once the grantee accepts the deed he, as well as the grantor, is bound by the agreement of the parties as set out therein. Id. The grantees in this ease can no more escape their agreement for an option than grantees in a deed accepted by them could escape their agreement to pay the consideration as recited in the deed simply because they had failed to sign it.
Since we are dealing only with an option personal to Mr. Bird, the rule against perpe-tuities is not violated.