Lord v. Holland

The plaintiff's deed was invalid, since the description set forth therein did not include a beginning point or other specifications enabling one to definitively locate the property to be conveyed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This title dispute concerns property originally owned by Frankie Lord O’Kelley, who died on April 4, 1998. Plaintiff, Chiquita Holland, is Ms. O’Kelley’s daughter; defendants, Thomas Lord, Jr., and Thomas Lord, III, are Ms. O’Kelley’s son and grandson. Plaintiff claims title to the property under a deed dated June 28, 1995 and filed April 3, 1998 —the afternoon before Ms. O’Kelley died. Each defendant claims a one-half undivided interest in the property under a deed dated February 19, 1998 and filed February 26, 1998. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging they obtained their deed by “trickery or artifice”, and seeking cancellation of their deed “under the doctrine of quia timet” and the ejectment of Lord, III. A copy of plaintiff’s deed was attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference. The deed describes the property as follows:All that tract of parcel of land lying and being in ____ of Parker Road joining Thomas Howard Lord, Jr. tax District 101, District 08, Land Lot 033, Hall County. Approximately 15 fifteen acres, more or less, joining lands of United States government and United Cities Gas Company and Thomas Howard Lord, Jr. Lord, Jr., filed a timely answer; Lord, III, was served by publication, but did not answer. Thereupon, the trial court entered a default judgment against Lord, III. It cancelled Lord, III’s deed, insofar as that instrument conveyed a one-half undivided interest in the property to him, and it awarded Lord, III’s interest in the property to plaintiff.1

Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, seeking, inter alia, to reform her deed to include an adequate description of the property. Lord, III moved to open the default, asserting, inter alia, he was entitled to file an answer in light of the amendment to the complaint. The motion to open the default was denied.

Lord v. Holland

The plaintiff's deed was invalid, since the description set forth therein did not include a beginning point or other specifications enabling one to definitively locate the property to be conveyed.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report