RAYMOND G. McGRUDER AND MAXINE McGRUDER v. FOSTER J. SANDERS; ELSIE JANE SANDERS; GEORGE F. HENDERSON; NELL HENDERSON; FRANCES SCOTT HENDERSON; ETHEL MAE COCHRANE; AND SUBURBAN CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: November 22, 2000; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-000099-MR
RAYMOND G. McGRUDER AND
MAXINE McGRUDER
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE ERNEST A. JASMIN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 95-CI-00354
v.
FOSTER J. SANDERS; ELSIE JANE SANDERS;
GEORGE F. HENDERSON; NELL HENDERSON;
FRANCES SCOTT HENDERSON; ETHEL MAE
COCHRANE; AND SUBURBAN CONSTRUCTION
AND MANAGEMENT, INC.
APPELLEES
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE, BARBER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
This appeal involves a boundary line dispute
and a prior attempt to get a written agreement as to the property
line of numerous adjacent landowners.
We opine that the circuit
court did not follow our directions on remand and again, vacate
and remand with directions.
This case is back to this Court after a remand to the
circuit court to reconsider the validity of a “Deed and
Agreement”.
It appears that the Deed and Agreement was signed by
all but one of the adjacent property owners, or their
predecessors in title.
The trial court originally concluded that
the written Deed and Agreement was invalid.
In an unpublished
case rendered April 23, 1999, (final on July 15, 1999), in Case
No. 1998-CA-001998-MR, this Court concluded the trial court
erroneously interpreted the law, applying requirements as to
parol agreements fixing boundary lines to the facts in this case
rather than the requirements for written agreements establishing
boundary lines.
More specifically, this Court concluded “that
the very nature of a parol agreement compels the requirements of
uncertainty, acquiescence, and possession, whereas there exists
no such compulsions as to a written agreement.”
The trial court
was given directions on remand to reconsider the validity of the
written Deed and Agreement in light of this Court’s clarification
of the law.
After remand, the trial court again discussed the
requirements for an oral agreement, mentioned estoppel, mentioned
written agreements, and simply concluded that the documents did
not meet the minimum requirements for a simple contract.
There
is no analysis of the written agreement (other than the one
missing signature) to see if it meets the requirements of a deed,
as ordered by this Court.
On remand, the trial court should look at the Deed and
Agreement first and gather from the four corners of the
instrument, the intentions of the parties.
Phelps v. Sledd, Ky.,
479 S.W.2d 894 (1972); Dennis v. Bird, Ky. App., 941 S.W.2d 486,
488 (1997).
An unambiguous instrument of conveyance must be
-2-
construed according to its terms.
Parol evidence of the parties’
intentions is not admissible unless the deed is ambiguous.
Id.
Interested parties have the right to agree on a dividing line
between their lands and to reduce their agreement to writing.
Those that do so (the signatories) and those claiming under them
are bound by the agreed line.
335, 58 S.W.2d 587 (1933).
VanHoose v. Fitzpatrick, 248 Ky.
After deciding whether or not the
Deed and Agreement meets the requirements for a valid deed, the
trial court will need to determine the boundary lines between the
parties.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Bullitt
Circuit Court is vacated and the matter remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
Mark E. Edison
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
Roy Emerson Welch
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
