Lenhart v. Desmond
1985 Wyo. LEXIS 550, 705 P.2d 338 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a deed to be effective, it must be delivered, which requires the grantor to have the present intent to irrevocably divest themselves of title. Placing a deed in a location accessible to the grantee does not constitute valid delivery if the grantor intends for the conveyance to take effect only upon their death.
Facts:
- In 1974, Edward V. Desmond executed a warranty deed for his house to his daughter and only child, Elizabeth A. Lenhart.
- Desmond's stated intent was for Lenhart to receive his possessions, including the house, upon his death.
- Desmond placed the executed deed into his safety deposit box.
- Desmond gave Lenhart access to the box via a signature card, at which time she became aware of the deed's existence.
- In July 1983, Desmond was hospitalized after a car accident.
- While Desmond was hospitalized, Lenhart accessed the safety deposit box to retrieve insurance policies.
- After being released, Desmond checked his box and discovered the deed was missing.
- In October 1983, Lenhart recorded the deed.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Desmond filed a complaint in the district court (trial court) against his daughter, Elizabeth A. Lenhart, to have the recorded deed declared invalid.
- Lenhart filed a counterclaim asking the court to declare the deed a valid gift.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Desmond, invalidating the deed and dismissing Lenhart's counterclaim.
- Lenhart, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Wyoming. Desmond is the appellee.
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 placing a deed in a safety deposit box, to which both the grantor and grantee have access, constitute a valid delivery if the grantor intends for the conveyance to take effect only upon their death?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cardine
No. Placing a deed in a safety deposit box accessible to the grantee does not constitute valid delivery if the grantor lacks the present intent to pass title immediately. The controlling element in the delivery of a deed is the grantor's intention at the time of the alleged delivery. The crucial test is whether the grantor manifested an intention to presently and irrevocably divest himself of title. Here, the court credited Edward Desmond's testimony that he never intended for Elizabeth Lenhart to have the property before his death and that he was merely making arrangements for the disposition of his property upon his death. While possession and recording of a deed create a rebuttable presumption of delivery, Desmond's clear testimony that he never intended to pass title during his lifetime and that Lenhart took the deed without his knowledge or consent was sufficient to overcome that presumption. Without the requisite intent to make a present transfer, there can be no delivery, actual or constructive.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental property law principle that intent is the essence of delivery for a deed. It clarifies that actions that might otherwise suggest delivery, such as providing access to a deed, are legally insufficient without the grantor's coexisting present intent to pass title. The decision serves as a crucial reminder of the distinction between a valid inter vivos conveyance and an invalid attempt at a testamentary transfer that does not comply with the formal requirements of a will. This precedent protects property owners from inadvertently losing title through preparatory actions intended to take effect only in the future.
