Gilbert v. McSpadden
91 S.W.2d 889 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a deed to be validly delivered, the grantor must part with possession and all power and control over the instrument with the unequivocal intention that it shall become operative and effective at that moment. A mere intention to deliver in the future is insufficient if the grantor retains control of the deed until death.
Facts:
- On March 19, 1927, Tom Gilbert executed and acknowledged two deeds conveying various tracts of land to his children.
- For over four years, Gilbert kept the deeds in his possession and continued to exercise dominion and control over the properties.
- On December 19, 1931, Gilbert removed the deeds from his bank box with the avowed purpose of delivering them to his daughter, Mrs. Scroggins, to be recorded.
- Gilbert traveled to Mrs. Scroggins' home, arriving on the evening of December 20, 1931, and retired for the night.
- The next morning, Gilbert was found dead in bed.
- After his death, the children found the deeds still in his personal grip in his room, took possession of them, and had them recorded.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Georgia Oakes Gilbert, as administratrix of Tom Gilbert's estate, initiated a legal action in a trial court against the decedent's children to reclaim title to the properties described in the deeds.
- The trial court presumably ruled in favor of the children, finding the deeds to be validly delivered.
- The administratrix, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the reviewing appellate court, where the children are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a grantor's stated intention to deliver deeds, followed by traveling to the grantee's home with the deeds but dying before parting with possession or control of them, constitute a valid legal delivery?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, Justice
No. A valid legal delivery does not occur when a grantor merely intends to deliver a deed in the future but dies while still in possession and control of the instrument. For a deed to be effective, the law requires a delivery, which necessitates that the grantor parts with possession and all control over the deed with the present intention for it to become immediately operative. The court reasoned that while Tom Gilbert may have intended to deliver the deeds at some future point, he retained possession and control of them until his death. He never performed an act or spoke a word manifesting an unequivocal intention to surrender the instruments and deprive himself of all authority over them. Therefore, because the deeds were never legally delivered, the attempted conveyances are invalid and the land remains part of his estate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict formal requirements for the delivery of a deed in property law, drawing a sharp line between a future intent to deliver and a present act of delivery. It clarifies that the grantor's relinquishment of control must be absolute and accompanied by a present intent to make the deed effective. The ruling underscores the legal principle that courts will not complete an imperfect gift after the donor's death. This case serves as a crucial precedent for disputes involving deeds found among a deceased grantor's possessions, emphasizing that uncompleted intentions are legally insufficient to transfer title.
