WAS IT RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE(S)?

In Eliopoulous v. Lake George Land Conservancy, Inc., the Lake George Land Conservancy entered into an agreement with Thomas Eliopoulous to convey a piece of real property known as "Anthony's Nose." At contract, a precise metes and bounds description was unavailable, so it was agreed that a survey would be conducted, a new description prepared, and a corrective deed issued after closing.

When Eliopoulous obtained a survey and filed a corrective deed using the new metes and bounds description, the Conservancy objected, claiming the deed included an extra 20 acres of property known as "Clifton Parcel" -- which had been excluded from the sale.

After Eliopoulous refused to rectify that supposed error, the Conservancy filed suit and the Washington County Supreme Court granted relief in Eliopoulous's favor.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, thought it was unclear whether the Clifton Parcel was intended to be encompassed by the conveyance.

While their exact intentions couldn't be gleaned from the description contained in the contract of sale, the AD3 was of the opinion rescission (or cancellation) of the entire deal wasn't appropriate, since the parties had intended to convey "Anthony's Nose" -- even though they weren't aware of its "precise dimensions."

Does anyone smell something stinky here?

To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Eliopoulous v. Lake George Land Conservancy, Inc.