Jablonowski v. Logan

10 Citing cases

  1. Pierce v. Sanderlin

    460 S.W.3d 9 (E.D. Mo. 2014)

    However, this does not follow the established principles of deed interpretation. Courts “reject an interpretation that conveys nothing in favor of one that conveys something.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (citation omitted); see also Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.P. v. Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Mo.App.S.D.1998) (citation omitted). “We will declare a deed void for uncertainty of description only where, after resorting to oral or other extrinsic proof, that which was intended by the parties remains a ‘mere matter of conjecture.’ ” Jablonowski, 169 S.W.3d at 130, quoting Hamburg Realty Co. v. Woods, 327 S.W.2d 138, 150 (Mo. banc 1959) (citation omitted).

  2. Pierce v. Sanderlin

    460 S.W.3d 9 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

    However, this does not follow the established principles of deed interpretation. Courts “reject an interpretation that conveys nothing in favor of one that conveys something.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (citation omitted); see also Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.P. v. Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Mo.App.S.D.1998) (citation omitted). “We will declare a deed void for uncertainty of description only where, after resorting to oral or other extrinsic proof, that which was intended by the parties remains a ‘mere matter of conjecture.’ ” Jablonowski, 169 S.W.3d at 130, quoting Hamburg Realty Co. v. Woods, 327 S.W.2d 138, 150 (Mo. banc 1959) (citation omitted).

  3. Wommack v. Grewach

    No. ED100348 (Mo. Ct. App. May. 13, 2014)

    At the same time, Missouri Courts favor validity over invalidity, and "may reject an interpretation [of a deed] that conveys nothing in favor of one that conveys something." Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005)(citing Hobbs v. Yeaeer, 263 S.W. 225, 229 (Mo. 1924); Mass. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 835 S.W.2d 475, 480-81 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992)); see also Fincher v. Miles Homes of Mo., Inc., 549 S.W.2d 848, 853 (Mo. banc 1977) (noting courts are lenient in constructing erroneous descriptions). Generally, a description is sufficient "if it affords the means of identification of the property."

  4. Minana v. Monroe

    467 S.W.3d 901 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    “Missouri's long-standing, cardinal rule of construction is that a deed must be construed as nearly as may be by the parties' intentions, to be ascertained within the four comers of the instrument, the surrounding circumstances and conditions.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). The 1902 Deed clearly expresses the intention for Kingsbury Place to function as a single street with all residents having equal rights to entrances and other common grounds.

  5. In re Gresham

    373 B.R. 914 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Interpreting and applying Missouri law

    Considering that evidence and descriptive language contained in the recorded deed, the court concluded that the identity of the lot could be ascertained. In Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005), the Finneys executed a deed purporting to convey to the Logans an easement across their property. The Jablonowskis subsequently acquired the property, and claimed that the easement deed was void due to an erroneous description — the deed described the easement as terminating at the bank of a river when in fact, it did not. Relying on Missouri's rule of construction favoring validity and on the surveyor's testimony, the Missouri court of appeals held that the deed's description was sufficiently definite to identify the easement.

  6. Barlow v. Saxon Holdings Trust

    656 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)

    The "cardinal rule of construction is that a deed must be construed as nearly as may be by the parties’ intentions ...." Jablonowski v. Logan , 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo. App. 2005).

  7. Minana v. Monroe

    467 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    “Missouri's long-standing, cardinal rule of construction is that a deed must be construed as nearly as may be by the parties' intentions, to be ascertained within the four comers of the instrument, the surrounding circumstances and conditions.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). The 1902 Deed clearly expresses the intention for Kingsbury Place to function as a single street with all residents having equal rights to entrances and other common grounds.

  8. Hellmann v. Sparks

    500 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)

    When interpreting the provisions of a written grant of an easement, Missouri courts look to the parties' intentions “to be ascertained within the four corners of the instrument, the surrounding circumstances and conditions.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). Furthermore, “an easement can be granted to be terminated on condition [.]”

  9. Hellmann v. Sparks

    500 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)

    When interpreting the provisions of a written grant of an easement, Missouri courts look to the parties' intentions “to be ascertained within the four corners of the instrument, the surrounding circumstances and conditions.” Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo.App.E.D.2005). Furthermore, “an easement can be granted to be terminated on condition [.]”

  10. Hellmann v. Sparks

    No. SD32740 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2015)

    When interpreting the provisions of a written grant of an easement, Missouri courts look to the parties' intentions "to be ascertained within the four corners of the instrument, the surrounding circumstances and conditions." Jablonowski v. Logan, 169 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Furthermore, "an easement can be granted to be terminated on condition[.]"