Uncertain language in deed leads to litigation

A key point in real estate deals is to make sure that deed language clearly specifies the interest that is being conveyed and the parties involved. Lack of clarity can lead to litigation, even among family members. In this case, two brothers operated a farm partnership together for many years. During that time, they acquired several tracts of farmland. They acquired one of these tracts under an installment contract in 1972. Payments under the contract were completed in 1987 at which time the sellers gave a warranty deed to the brothers in their individual names. A couple of weeks later, the brothers (and the wife of one of the brothers) executed another deed conveying an “undivided interest” in the farmland to only one of the brothers and his wife. Seven years later, the brother that purportedly conveyed his interest told the attorney that drafted the deed that he thought there was a mistake with the deed language. Over the next year and a half, attempts were made to get the parties to meet concerning the deed language, but a meeting never occurred. The brother that raised the concern about the 1987 deed died in 2004. After his death, other siblings claimed that the deceased brother had an interest in the farmland and wanted to partition the property. They claimed that the 1987 deed only intended to add the one brother’s wife to the deed, not eliminate the now-deceased brother from ownership. However, the trial court determined that the 1987 deed was unambiguous and that it conveyed title to the other brother and his spouse. In addition, the court determined that the plaintiffs’ claim was time-barred by the ten-year statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The allegedly defective deed was executed in 1987, and that date triggered the beginning of the ten-year statute of limitations. Even if the limitations period didn’t begin to run until 1994 when the brother told the attorney of his suspicions that the deed was defective, the plaintiffs still didn’t bring their case until 2005 – more than ten years later.  The Chief Justice dissented on the basis that the deed was ambiguous for conveying an “undivided interest” when the brother, at the time the deed was executed, owned an undivided one-half interest in the property. The Chief Justice also believed that the statute of limitations had not run. Thacker v. Thacker, No. 7-277/06-1766, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 748 (Iowa Ct. App. Jun.13, 2007).