Joy Harding v. Tabitha Coleman and Mary E. Jackson, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 04-2466.G & P represented the Defendants/purchasers in this matter. The key issue in this case was a dispute regarding the legal description of the subject premises. The subject property contained two parcels of land that clearly were delineated in the deed that Plaintiff purchased previously from another party. Plaintiff alleged he did not mean to sell the contiguous parcel not containing a home. Plaintiff alleged that he made a mistake in the legal description. Plaintiff alleged that his closing attorney when drafting the deed to convey the property to the Defendant, erroneously included both parcels as contained in the deed that Plaintiff owned. Plaintiff contends that the purchase and sale agreement and the listing agreement between he and his broker, as well as Defendants’ understanding, was that the sale of the property only meant to embrace the land on which the home was located and not the second lot that was to be retained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff states there was an error to convey both lots and this was an error that Defendants understood. Plaintiff contended that she was entitled to receive back this second lot of land. The Defendants contended that they in good faith purchased the land that Plaintiff owned and that at all times, the understanding was that Defendants, for the sale price, were purchasing both the lot of land on which the home existed, and the adjacent lot of land, all contained in one deed. Defendants contend that a deed was executed conveying what both parties agreed to be contained in the selling price (i.e. both lots) and therefore there was no mistake. Defendants stated that everything went according to agreement between the parties and therefore they are entitled to keep the second lot of land as it was bargained for in the sale price. After four days of trial, G & P prevailed on behalf of its clients and the Defendants were able to retain title to both parcels.