Daily Development for Tuesday, September 6, 2005
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
VENDOR/PURCHASER; MERGER BY DEED; PRORATION OF TAXES: Purchase contract provision regarding proration of taxes was not exempt from the merger doctrine due to a mutual mistake of fact.
Andrew Chapman v. Anchor Lumber, 823 N.E.2d 594 (2005).
In 2002, plaintiff purchased from defendant a parcel of residential real estate upon which a dwelling had recently been constructed. The purchase contract provided for proration of the applicable property taxes as of the closing date of the sale. Both parties, however, were under the mistaken impression that the parcel was subject to assessment as a "new construction," rather than as "substantially completed."
The property had been reassessed in late 2001, but none of the parties called the assessor's office prior to the closing, and thus remained unaware of the reassessment until it was published in a newspaper a week after the closing. The amount initially prorated had been $180.46; the amount that would have been due from seller under the reassessment was $4,168.58.
The circuit court ordered that this mutual mistake of fact required a recalculation of the taxes according to the new assessment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the contract merged into the deed, making the calculation of the real estate taxes final and barring plaintiff's claim. Citing Daniels v. Anderson, 642 N.E. 2d 128 (1994), the appeals court agreed that the merger doctrine is the general rule when property is conveyed via deed, and the deed survives as the only binding instrument, but an exception does exist when there are provisions of the contract that the conveyance of the deed does not fulfill.
The court found in the case at hand that plaintiff had not proved that the parties intended this proration provision to survive merger. The court also cited Hagenbuch v. Chapin, 500 N.E. 2d 987 (1986), a case in which a mutual mistake regarding the acreage of the property conveyed merited another exception to the merger doctrine. However, in the instant case, the court declined to broaden Hagenbuch to create a broad exception for mutual mistake, despite the decision of another district of the state appellate court to create just such a broad exception. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
Comment: The conclusion, obviously, is that this was a discoverable circumstance of which the buyer should have made itself aware before closing. In the alternative, the buyer should have included language in the agreement for closing that would have protected it from miscalculations of prorated property taxes. In fact, most escrow instructions, as the editor understands things, do have that kind of language, in order to protect the escrow agent.
But what in the world does the concept of merger have to do with anything?
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property,
and Trust Law or of the National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or firstname.lastname@example.org
To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
or send an email message to the address email@example.com,
with the text SIGNOFF FINANCE in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.