habendum clause in South Carolina

2006Deeds § 35 (2001); see also *591 Artis v. Artis, 228 N.C. 754 , 47 S.E.2d 228, 232 (1948) (“Ordinarily the premises and granting clauses designate the grantee and the thing granted, while the habendum clause relates to the quantum of the estate.”).

2006Deeds § 35 (2001); see also *591 Artis v. Artis, 228 N.C. 754 , 47 S.E.2d 228, 232 (1948) (“Ordinarily the premises and granting clauses designate the grantee and the thing granted, while the habendum clause relates to the quantum of the estate.”).

2004Coast Lumber Corp. v. Langston Lumber Co., 128 S.C. 7, 9 , 122 S.E. 395, 396 (1924) (“A conveyance of real estate not carrying the word ‘heirs’ cannot convey the fee.”); Tarrant, 293 S.C. at 445 , 361 S.E.2d at 345 (finding an indefinite estate was conveyed by the granting clause because of the omission of words of inheritance; and therefore, resort was had to the habendum clause for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the grantors).

2004Coast Lumber Corp. v. Langston Lumber Co., 128 S.C. 7, 9 , 122 S.E. 395, 396 (1924) (“A conveyance of real estate not carrying the word ‘heirs’ cannot convey the fee.”); Tarrant, 293 S.C. at 445 , 361 S.E.2d at 345 (finding an indefinite estate was conveyed by the granting clause because of the omission of words of inheritance; and therefore, resort was had to the habendum clause for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the grantors).

2006Thus, in Hunt, 358 S.C. at 567 , 595 S.E.2d at 847 , this court quoted the habendum clause in that deed: “To Have and to Hold all and singular the premises before mentioned unto the said [SCFC] and their successors in office, and assigns forever.” (emphasis removed); see also Smoak v. McClure, 236 S.C. 548, 549 , 115 S.E.2d 55, 55 (1960) (“The habendum clause is regular in form, as follows: ‘To have and to hold, all and singular, the said premises before mentioned unto the said Ben Garris, and his Heirs and Assigns forever.’ ”).

2006Thus, in Hunt, 358 S.C. at 567 , 595 S.E.2d at 847 , this court quoted the habendum clause in that deed: “To Have and to Hold all and singular the premises before mentioned unto the said [SCFC] and their successors in office, and assigns forever.” (emphasis removed); see also Smoak v. McClure, 236 S.C. 548, 549 , 115 S.E.2d 55, 55 (1960) (“The habendum clause is regular in form, as follows: ‘To have and to hold, all and singular, the said premises before mentioned unto the said Ben Garris, and his Heirs and Assigns forever.’ ”).

2004Wayburn, 270 S.C. at 42 , 239 S.E.2d at 892 ; Bean v. Bean, 253 S.C. 340, 343-44 , 170 S.E.2d 654, 655-56 (1969). *573 The habendum clause of the deed in question reads, “To Have and to Hold all and singular the premises before mentioned unto the said [SCFC] and their successors in office, and assigns forever.” When a habendum clause contains the traditional words of inheritance, it has the effect of enlarging an indefinite granting clause into a fee simple.

2004Wayburn, 270 S.C. at 42 , 239 S.E.2d at 892 ; Bean v. Bean, 253 S.C. 340, 343-44 , 170 S.E.2d 654, 655-56 (1969). *573 The habendum clause of the deed in question reads, “To Have and to Hold all and singular the premises before mentioned unto the said [SCFC] and their successors in office, and assigns forever.” When a habendum clause contains the traditional words of inheritance, it has the effect of enlarging an indefinite granting clause into a fee simple.

2006Luculently, the habendum clause in the Deed is the section beginning “TO HAVE AND TO HOLD ...” *592 The habendum clause in the Deed is followed by Crescent’s covenant to Bristol whereby Crescent “covenants to warrant specially the title to the Property against the lawful claims of any person claiming from, through, or under it.” “The doctrine of caveat emptor ... has, in the absence of fraud and misrepresentation long governed the obligations of the parties in the sale of real estate in this State.” Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407, 412 , 175 S.E.2d 792, 794 (1970).

2006Luculently, the habendum clause in the Deed is the section beginning “TO HAVE AND TO HOLD ...” *592 The habendum clause in the Deed is followed by Crescent’s covenant to Bristol whereby Crescent “covenants to warrant specially the title to the Property against the lawful claims of any person claiming from, through, or under it.” “The doctrine of caveat emptor ... has, in the absence of fraud and misrepresentation long governed the obligations of the parties in the sale of real estate in this State.” Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407, 412 , 175 S.E.2d 792, 794 (1970).

2004Coast Lumber Corp. v. Langston Lumber Co., 128 S.C. 7, 9 , 122 S.E. 395, 396 (1924) (“A conveyance of real estate not carrying the word ‘heirs’ cannot convey the fee.”); Tarrant, 293 S.C. at 445 , 361 S.E.2d at 345 (finding an indefinite estate was conveyed by the granting clause because of the omission of words of inheritance; and therefore, resort was had to the habendum clause for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the grantors).

2004Coast Lumber Corp. v. Langston Lumber Co., 128 S.C. 7, 9 , 122 S.E. 395, 396 (1924) (“A conveyance of real estate not carrying the word ‘heirs’ cannot convey the fee.”); Tarrant, 293 S.C. at 445 , 361 S.E.2d at 345 (finding an indefinite estate was conveyed by the granting clause because of the omission of words of inheritance; and therefore, resort was had to the habendum clause for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the grantors).