## Facts

- Eura Mae Redmon executed a deed (Jan. 14, 1993) conveying real property to her three children: W.C. Sewell, Billy Sewell, and Melba Joe Taylor.
- The deed conveyed the property to the grantees “jointly and severally, and unto their heirs, assigns and successors forever,” while reserving a life estate in Redmon.
- W.C. Sewell died (Nov. 18, 1993) and Billy Sewell died (May 11, 1995), both before Redmon’s death (Feb. 17, 1997).
- After Redmon died, Taylor sought a declaration that the deed created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, making her sole owner as the surviving grantee.
- The deceased brothers’ descendants contended the deed created a tenancy in common, so their fathers’ shares passed to them.
- The chancery court admitted extrinsic evidence of Redmon’s intent and quieted title in Taylor based on a finding of joint tenancy with survivorship.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed conveying property to multiple grantees “jointly and severally” (and to their “heirs, assigns and successors forever”), without survivorship language, “expressly declared” a joint tenancy under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-603.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence of the grantor’s intent may be used to establish a joint tenancy when the deed’s language is ambiguous and the statute presumes a tenancy in common absent an express declaration.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the decree quieting title in Taylor and remanded.
- The court held the deed did not expressly create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
- Because the deed lacked an express joint-tenancy declaration, Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-603 required construction as a tenancy in common.
- The chancellor erred by using extrinsic evidence of intent to override the statutory rule of construction where the deed itself did not expressly declare joint tenancy.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-603, a conveyance to two or more persons creates a tenancy in common unless the instrument expressly declares a joint tenancy.
- Ambiguous or nonstandard phrasing in a deed is insufficient to satisfy an “expressly declared” requirement for joint tenancy.
- When a legislative rule of construction prescribes a default estate absent express language, extrinsic evidence cannot supply the missing express declaration.
- Absence of survivorship language supports application of the statutory presumption of tenancy in common.

## Conclusion

The court held that the deed’s ambiguous “jointly and severally” wording did not expressly create a joint tenancy, so the grantees took as tenants in common under Arkansas statute, and the descendants of the deceased grantees retained their inherited undivided interests.


James v. Taylor, 62 Ark. App. 130, 969 S.W.2d 672 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998)