## Facts

- Edna C. Seymour owned land in Jackson County, Mississippi and conveyed multiple parcels by general warranty deed.
- Seymour conveyed a three-acre parcel to the McDonnells, who later conveyed it to Jerry W. and Bonnie Ann Coleman; the Colemans assumed debt owed to Seymour.
- Seymour later agreed to divide a 5.5-acre tract into two roughly equal parcels and, by separate warranty deeds, conveyed approximately 2.75 acres to Larry and Gina Evans and approximately 2.75 acres to Dudley and Lori Cruse, along with easements for ingress and egress.
- The Evanses, Cruses, and Colemans intended residential use and began improvements; the Cruses sought a permit to place a mobile home.
- County officials advised that subdivision ordinances prevented permitting unless the tracts were brought into compliance; the Evanses and Colemans were similarly informed when they inquired.
- Seymour did not know of the subdivision-ordinance requirements at the time of the conveyances; the noncompliance resulted from the manner in which the land had been subdivided.
- The purchasers sued in chancery court; the chancellor set aside the deeds, ordered return of purchase payments, and awarded consequential damages and attorney’s fees against Seymour.

## Issues

1. Whether a conveyance that violates county subdivision regulations breaches implied covenants or implied warranties associated with a general warranty deed.
2. Whether rescission, consequential damages, and attorney’s fees were available remedies on an implied-covenant theory based solely on subdivision-ordinance noncompliance.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Seymour.
- The Court held the warranty deeds were valid and did not breach implied covenants merely because the subdivisions conflicted with county subdivision ordinances.
- The Court vacated the chancery court’s rescission order and its awards of restitution, consequential damages, and attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- Implied covenants in a general warranty deed protect interests tied to title (e.g., seisin, right to convey, freedom from encumbrances, and quiet enjoyment), not general regulatory compliance.
- A technical violation of subdivision regulations, without more, is not a defect in title and does not establish breach of implied covenants in a warranty deed.
- Absent fraud, concealment, or an express warranty regarding regulatory compliance, courts will not impose liability on a grantor under an implied-warranty theory for unknowing noncompliance with subdivision ordinances.
- Regulatory or permitting barriers affecting intended land use do not, standing alone, justify rescission or damages as remedies for breach of deed covenants.

## Conclusion

The court held that subdivision-ordinance noncompliance arising from a seller’s subdivision of land does not, by itself, breach the implied covenants of a general warranty deed, and it reversed the chancery court’s rescission and monetary awards entered on that theory.


Seymour v. Evans, 608 So. 2d 1141 (Miss. 1992)