Gross v. Gross
781 p.2d 284, 239 Mont. 480, 1989 Mont. LEXIS 288 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of delivery of a deed, strengthened by its recording, can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, which does not include the grantor's self-serving statements or subsequent acts of control over the property when a close familial relationship exists between the grantor and grantee.
Facts:
- Peter J. Gross (the father), at 80 years old, suffered a stroke sometime after his wife (Richard's mother) died in 1980.
- Following the stroke, Peter and his son, Richard P. Gross, discussed Peter putting his affairs in order.
- Peter executed and recorded three warranty deeds that transferred property from himself to himself and Richard as joint tenants.
- Peter retained possession of the deeds, continued to occupy and maintain the property, and paid all associated expenses.
- Peter informed Richard that he had put the property into a joint tenancy with him, stating his intention to avoid probate.
- Peter subsequently asked Richard to reconvey the property to him, but Richard refused.
- Peter has since remarried.
- Conflicts exist in testimony regarding whether Richard requested his name on the deeds and whether he promised not to interfere with Peter's control of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter J. Gross (the father) initiated this action in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Peter J. Gross.
- The District Court held that Peter J. Gross presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of delivery raised by his recording of the deeds.
- Richard P. Gross (the son) appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, with Richard P. Gross as the appellant and Peter J. Gross as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the District Court err in holding that Peter J. Gross presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of delivery arising from the recording of the deeds?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice John Conway Harrison
Yes, the District Court erred because Peter J. Gross did not present clear and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery. When a deed is executed, a presumption arises that delivery occurred, and recording the deed significantly strengthens this presumption, requiring clear and convincing evidence to overcome it. The court referenced Roth v. Palutzke (1960) and Controlled Receivables v. Harmon (Utah 1966) to establish this standard. The court reasoned that a grantor's self-serving statements are generally insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery. Furthermore, the fact that the grantor has retained possession of the deeds and continued to occupy and control the land will not rebut the presumption when a close relationship, such as between a father and an adult son, exists between the grantor and grantee. The District Court's reliance on Peter's dominion and control and payment of expenses was therefore misplaced, as these acts are legally insufficient to rebut the presumption given the familial relationship. The court clarified that the Roth precedent applies equally to adult children, not just minor children, in defining 'close relationships.' The undisputed evidence showing Peter's intent to avoid probate through the joint tenancy arrangement further supports the intention to create a present interest. Therefore, Peter's self-serving statements and subsequent acts of control, which are explicitly deemed insufficient by law in this context, could not rebut the strong presumption of delivery.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high evidentiary bar required to rebut the presumption of delivery for recorded deeds, particularly when a close familial relationship exists between the grantor and grantee. It clarifies that a grantor's subjective intent, when contradicted by the objective act of recording and not supported by independent, clear, and convincing evidence, is insufficient to undo a recorded transfer. The ruling limits the types of evidence that can effectively challenge recorded deeds in such contexts, emphasizing the legal weight given to the act of recording and the strong policy interest in the finality of property transfers. Future cases will require robust, independent corroborating evidence beyond the grantor's own testimony and post-recording actions to succeed in challenging the delivery of a deed under similar circumstances.
