MTGLQ Investors , 263 N.C. App. 193 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-349
Filed: 18 December 2018
Brunswick County, No. 16-CVS-2205
MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P., Plaintiff,
v.
PETER C. CURNIN; PC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; BALD HEAD ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
Appeal by Plaintiff from orders entered 24 August 2017 by Judge Ola M. Lewis
in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 October 2018.
Brian M. Rowlson and G. Benjamin Milam for Plaintiff-Appellant.
The Hillis Firm, by Lindsey Walker Hillis, for Defendant-Appellee Peter C.
Curnin.
Murchison, Taylor & Gibson PLLC, by Andrew K. McVey, for Defendant-
Appellee Bald Head Association.
DILLON, Judge.
Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, L.P. (“MTGLQ”) appeals from an order denying its
motion for summary judgment and an order granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants.
I. Background
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
The subject-matter of this action is certain real property located at 29 Fort
Holmes Trail on Bald Head Island (the “Property”). The central issue is whether a
certain deed of trust sufficiently describes the Property to create a valid lien.
The Property is owned by Defendant Peter C. Curnin (“Curnin”). In December
2007, Curnin obtained a loan from Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”),
securing it by the deed of trust at issue in this matter (the “Deed of Trust”). One
section of the Deed of Trust includes the following legal description of the Property:
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN
THE COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK, IN THE [STATE] OF
NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS LOT # 333 LOCATED
IN STAGE I OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
Being that parcel of land conveyed to Peter C. Curnin from
PC Construction Inc. by that deed dated 12/13/2001 and
recorded 12/13/2001 in Deed Book 1531, at Page 66 of the
Brunswick County, NC Public Registry.
The legal description includes the Property’s lot number (“LOT # 333”) and the phase
of the development (“STAGE I”). However, it does not include any reference to the
book and page numbers where a title searcher could find the map of Stage I as
recorded in the Brunswick County Map Book.
MTGLQ is the successor in interest to Bank of America’s interest in the Deed
of Trust. In 2016, MTGLQ commenced this action, seeking (1) to quiet title regarding
-2-
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
the validity of its lien on the Property and (2) to reform the Deed of Trust to include
a reference to the recorded map in the County’s Map Book.
MTGLQ moved for summary judgment. After a hearing on the matter, the
trial court denied MTGLQ’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants. MTGLQ timely appealed.
II. Standard of Review
We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo.
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 470, 597 S.E.2d 674, 693 (2004).
III. Analysis
MTGLQ argues that the trial court erred by denying its summary judgment
motion and by granting summary judgment for Defendants. For the reasons stated
below, we conclude that the Deed of Trust adequately describes the Property to create
a lien on that Property without the need for reformation. Therefore, we hold that
MTGLQ is entitled to summary judgment on its quiet title claim.
Our General Statutes allow a quiet title action to be brought “by any person
against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for
the purpose of determining such adverse claims.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-10 (2016). An
action for quiet title has two essential elements: (1) the plaintiff must own or have
some interest in the property at issue, and (2) the defendant must have a claim
adverse to the plaintiff’s title or interest in the property. Wells v. Clayton, 236 N.C.
-3-
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
102, 107-08, 72 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1952). In this case, these elements are satisfied:
MTGLQ has a lien on the Property which is adverse to Defendant’s title in the
Property.
In order to be valid, a deed or deed of trust must contain a legal description of
the land “sufficient to identify it” or refer “to something extrinsic by which the land
may be identified with certainty.” Overton v. Boyce, 289 N.C. 291, 293, 221 S.E.2d
347, 349 (1976). The entire deed should be considered when determining the identity
of the land conveyed. Quelch v. Futch, 172 N.C. 316, 317, 90 S.E. 259, 260 (1916).
Indeed, “[c]lauses inserted in a deed should be regarded as inserted for a purpose,
and should be given a meaning that would aid the description.” Id. “Every part of a
deed ought, if possible, take effect, and every word to operate.” Id. Thus, if a deed’s
language, “including the references to extrinsic things, describes with certainty the
property intended to be conveyed, parol evidence is admissible to fit the description
in the deed to the land.” Overton, 289 N.C. at 293-94, 221 S.E2d at 349; N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 8-39 (2007).
Here, the Deed of Trust’s description, set forth above, contains the Property’s
lot number and the correct subdivision as well as a reference to the deed in which
Defendant obtained title to the Property. This description describes the Property
with certainty as it could only refer to the Property. There is no other Lot # 333 in
Stage I of the development. And, in addition to the legal description set forth above,
-4-
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
the Deed of Trust also identifies the real estate securing the loan by its correct street
address and tax parcel number, as follows:
This [Deed of Trust] secures to Lender . . . the following
described property located in the County of Brunswick []
Parcel ID Number: 2641O030 which currently has the
address of 29 Fort Holmes Trail[,] Southport [,] North
Carolina 28461.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this property unto Trustee . . .
[.]
We conclude that the four corners of the Deed of Trust document sufficiently
describes the Property to create a valid lien on that Property. In reaching our
conclusion, we find persuasive a recent unpublished opinion, cited in MTGLQ’s brief,
in which we found that a deed of trust can identify the property “with certainty” and
“provide constructive notice of [a] lien” where the deed of trust contains the correct
physical address and the tax parcel ID number. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Charlotte Prop.
Invs., LLC, 234 N.C. App. 477, 762 S.E.2d 532, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 651, *8-10,
(2014) (unpublished). The physical address and tax parcel ID number contained in
the Deed of Trust each refer to “something extrinsic by which the land may be
identified with certainty.” Overton, 289 N.C. at 293, 221 S.E.2d at 349.
We disagree with Defendant’s argument that the language in the Deed of Trust
is similar to the description in Garren v. Watts, 235 N.C. App. 423, 763 S.E.2d 926,
2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 838 (2014) (unpublished). The deed in Garren varies greatly
-5-
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
from the Deed of Trust at issue here. In Garren, the legal description of the real
estate being conveyed was left blank, though other parts of the deed contained a
reference to the grantor’s address and a handwritten parcel number. Garren, 2014
N.C. App. LEXIS at *2. However, there was no language indicating any intention
that the address referred to was being conveyed. Garren, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS at
*5-7. Further, there was no language indicating any intention that the property
referenced in the handwritten parcel number written at the bottom of the deed was
being conveyed. Id.We also recognize that MTGLQ included a claim for reformation in its
complaint and that Defendant argues that MTGLQ’s claim is one of reformation and,
therefore, time-barred. However, no reformation is needed here as the four corners
of the Deed of Trust refers to things that, extrinsically, completely and adequately
describe and identify the Property. And there is no statute of limitations issue with
regard to MTGLQ’s quiet title claim. See Poore v. Swan Quarter Farms, Inc., 79 N.C.
App. 286, 289-90, 338 S.E.2d 817, 819 (1986).
Having determined that the Deed of Trust sufficiently describes the Property,
we turn to the question as to whether Curnin is the true owner of the Property. That
is, in order for Curnin to pledge the Property as security for the loan, he must have
owned the Property. Curnin’s ownership of the Property turns on whether the deeds
in his chain of title sufficiently describe the Property. Several deeds in his chain of
-6-
MTGLQ V. CURNIN
Opinion of the Court
title, including the deed conveying the Property to him, all include the same legal
description as the Deed of Trust, with no reference to the book and page number of
the subdivision’s map in the County’s Map Book. We have carefully reviewed the
deeds in question and conclude that their references to extrinsic sources sufficiently
describe the Property and its boundaries. Therefore, the preceding deeds are valid.
Curnin could, and did, encumber the Property in 2007 when he obtained the loan
from Bank of America.
III. Conclusion
The Deed of Trust sufficiently describes the Property to create a lien. We need
not address MTGLQ’s reformation claim. As such, the trial court erred in denying
MTGLQ’s motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. We therefore reverse the order of the trial court and remand for
entry of summary judgment in favor of MTGLQ’s claim that it has a valid lien on the
Property.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges STROUD and BERGER concur.
-7-