LeMehaute v. LeMehaute
1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2438, 585 S.W.2d 276 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of a grantor executing and recording a deed creates a strong presumption of delivery and intent to pass a present interest, especially in a voluntary family settlement where the grantor is also one of the grantees and retains physical possession of the instrument.
Facts:
- Vincent LeMehaute and his first wife acquired a residential property where they lived with their two daughters, Renee and Lorna.
- After his first wife's death, Vincent LeMehaute remarried.
- On September 18, 1975, seeking to avoid probate upon his death, LeMehaute consulted an attorney to draft a deed.
- On his attorney's advice, LeMehaute executed a deed granting the property to himself, his new wife, and his adult daughter Renee as joint tenants.
- The attorney informed LeMehaute that he would need Renee's signature for any future transactions involving the property.
- The deed was officially recorded, and LeMehaute retrieved the physical document and kept it in a locked cabinet at his home.
- Two months later, LeMehaute informed Renee she was a joint grantee and asked her to sign a new deed to add her sister and step-brother; she refused.
- A year later, LeMehaute asked Renee to co-sign a mortgage against the property, which she also refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent LeMehaute and his wife sued his daughter, Renee LeMehaute, in the trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought reformation of the deed to nullify the grant to Renee, alleging the deed was never delivered.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding there was no present intention to convey an interest to the daughter and ordered the deed reformed.
- The defendant, Renee LeMehaute, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
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 act of executing and recording a deed that names himself and his daughter as joint tenants constitute a valid delivery, thereby conveying a present interest in the property to the daughter, even if the grantor retains physical possession of the deed and does not immediately inform the daughter of the conveyance?
Opinions:
Majority - Shanglor, Presiding Judge
Yes. A grantor's act of executing and recording a deed constitutes a valid delivery that conveys a present interest in the property. The court's reasoning is that recording a deed serves as a public proclamation of the grantor's intent to transfer title, creating a strong presumption of delivery. This presumption is enhanced in cases of a voluntary settlement upon a child. The grantor's retention of the physical deed does not defeat delivery, particularly when, as here, the grantor is also a grantee, because delivery to one grantee is legally considered delivery to all. Furthermore, Renee's subsequent actions, such as refusing to reconvey the property or subject it to a mortgage, constituted acceptance, which relates back to the time the deed was recorded. The evidence, including the attorney's warning that Renee's signature would be needed for future transactions, showed that LeMehaute understood he was passing a present interest to his daughter.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal weight of recording a deed as prima facie evidence of the grantor's intent to deliver the instrument and pass title. It clarifies that a grantor's subsequent change of heart or uncommunicated intentions at the time of execution are insufficient to overcome the powerful presumption created by the public act of recordation. The ruling solidifies the principle that delivery is determined by the grantor's intent at the moment of the act, not by later regret. For future cases, this holding makes it very difficult for grantors to challenge the validity of a recorded deed based on a subjective claim of non-delivery, thereby promoting certainty in property records and protecting the interests of named grantees.
