## Facts

- In 1967, W.P. Bridges, Jr. and Deweese agreed to sell a lot to Hugh H. Moore, but the deed mistakenly named Moore Homes, Inc. as grantee while Moore individually executed the purchase-money deed of trust.
- After Moore defaulted, Bridges and Deweese foreclosed in 1968 and repurchased the property, but legal title remained of record in Moore Homes, Inc. due to the original drafting error.
- In 1969, Bridges and Deweese conveyed the lot to Doyle Homes, Inc. by general warranty deed, despite the unresolved record-title defect.
- Doyle Homes built a house on the lot and in 1970 conveyed the house and lot to Steven L. Heimburger and his wife by general warranty deed; the buyers executed a deed of trust securing a note for $30,250 and paid $200 at closing.
- Heimburger later became sole owner after his wife conveyed her interest to him.
- In February 1974, Heimburger contracted to sell the property for $36,500, but the sale failed in April 1974 when the record-title defect was discovered shortly before closing.
- Heimburger hired counsel, paid $1,250 in attorney’s fees, and sued in 1974 for money damages and fees against Doyle Homes and against Bridges and Deweese as remote warrantors.
- In November 1974, Moore Homes, Inc. and Moore executed a quitclaim deed to Doyle Homes, curing the record-title defect while the suit was pending.
- After the title was cured, Heimburger rented the home, made no further efforts to sell, stopped making mortgage payments, and the property was sold at foreclosure in September 1975.
- The chancery court awarded Heimburger damages against Bridges and Deweese based largely on the net proceeds he would have received from the failed 1974 sale.

## Issues

1. Whether a remote grantee may recover from remote grantors for breach of the covenants of seisin and good right to convey in a general warranty deed.
2. Whether a temporary record-title defect constitutes a breach of the covenants of quiet enjoyment or general warranty absent eviction or an equivalent event.
3. Whether lost-sale proceeds and attorney’s fees are recoverable from remote warrantors when the grantee’s possession was never disturbed and the defect was later cured.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the judgment against Bridges and Deweese and discharged them from liability.
- The covenants of seisin and good right to convey were not enforceable by Heimburger against Bridges and Deweese because those covenants are personal and do not run with the land.
- The covenants of quiet enjoyment and general warranty run with the land, but there was no breach because Heimburger suffered no eviction or equivalent disturbance of possession.
- The failed 1974 sale and related expenses did not support damages against the remote grantors absent breach of a covenant running to Heimburger.

## Legal Principles

- The covenant of seisin and the covenant of good right to convey are personal covenants; they do not run with the land and cannot be enforced by a remote grantee against a remote grantor.
- The covenants of quiet enjoyment and general warranty run with the land and may be enforced by a remote grantee against a remote grantor.
- A covenant of quiet enjoyment or general warranty is breached only by eviction or the equivalent of eviction; a record-title defect, without hostile assertion or judicial determination resulting in loss of title or possession, is insufficient.
- When there is no breach of a covenant running with the land, consequential losses tied to an aborted sale and attorney’s fees are not recoverable from remote grantors on a warranty-of-title theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that remote grantors were not liable to a remote purchaser for a record-title defect that never caused eviction or its equivalent and was later cured, and that the purchaser could not sue remote grantors on non-running covenants such as seisin or good right to convey.


Bridges v. Heimburger, 360 So. 2d 929 (Miss. 1978)