Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Overby v. Cavanaugh
Citation: 434 So. 2d 1365Docket: 54335
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; July 27, 1983; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
In the case of Clay B. Overby and Margaret M. Overby v. Eleanor Lynn Overby Cavanaugh and James Norris Overby, the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed a title confirmation suit concerning a tax deed land description: "18 1/2 A Mid E side of E 1/2 NE 1/2 27-4-4." Appellant Clay B. Overby contended that this description was void, constituting a cloud on his title. The Chancery Court, led by Chancellor Billy Bridges, determined that the land description was indeed defective, primarily because it resulted in multiple potential configurations that could not adequately identify the property. Although the appellees argued that a surveyor could locate the land based on existing records, the court emphasized that a valid tax deed must contain a precise description that allows for unambiguous identification. Citing precedents, the court noted that the absence of extrinsic evidence to clarify the description further invalidated the claim. Ultimately, the court ruled that the description was insufficient on its own, leading to a reversal of the lower court's decision.
No evidence supporting the description of the property was presented. The case of Hassie Hunt Trust v. Proctor involved a clearer land description ("10 acres on the south side") compared to the ambiguous description at issue here ("18 1/2 A Mid E side"). The latter could lead to multiple interpretations by a surveyor, making it insufficient. A precedent in Wilson established that tax deed descriptions, such as "5.65 acres NE 1/4 of SE 1/4," are void due to ambiguity, emphasizing that the parties' intent is irrelevant in tax deeds. The current description is deemed equally unclear, leading to an erroneous ruling by the chancellor regarding its validity. The complainants' assertion of the description's invalidity was upheld, and the chancellor's decision to sustain the defendants' demurrer is reversed, allowing the complainants to proceed with their title confirmation action. The ruling is supported by concurring justices. The case is focused solely on the validity of the land description, with no statutes cited by either party, although Mississippi law permits "parol evidence" in certain land cases.