Noell v. Crow-Billingsley Air Park Ltd. Partnership
2007 WL 2004964, 233 S.W.3d 408 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal delivery of a deed is determined by the grantor's intent to make the instrument operative as a conveyance and to place it within the grantee's control, and does not require the grantee's manual, physical possession of the original document. An unrecorded deed is valid and binding between the parties to the conveyance.
Facts:
- In 1983, David Noell sold two lots to his father for $190,000, creating a significant capital gains tax liability for himself.
- To avoid the tax by reinvesting the funds in a residence, Noell arranged in 1985 to repurchase the same lots from Crow-Billingsley Air Park Limited Partnership (Crow-Billingsley), which had since acquired the property.
- On June 28, 1985, Noell paid Crow-Billingsley $10,000 and executed a promissory note for $180,000, which stated it was in part payment for the lots 'this day conveyed to the undersigned by a General Warranty Deed.'
- Henry Billingsley, acting on behalf of Crow-Billingsley, signed the General Warranty Deed conveying the lots to Noell.
- Billingsley retained the original signed deed but gave Noell a copy.
- Noell subsequently used the copy of the deed to establish the property as his legal homestead.
- Noell never made any principal or interest payments on the $180,000 promissory note, which was due in fifteen years.
Procedural Posture:
- David Noell initiated litigation against Crow-Billingsley Air Park Limited Partnership and others in a Texas trial court concerning partnership operations.
- In response, Crow-Billingsley filed a supplemental counterclaim against Noell to enforce the 1985 promissory note.
- Crow-Billingsley moved for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim regarding the note.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Crow-Billingsley.
- The trial court then severed the promissory note action from the rest of the litigation, creating a final, appealable judgment.
- Noell filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Noell, as appellant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Crow-Billingsley as 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 a grantor's failure to physically transfer an original deed to the grantee constitute a failure of legal delivery, thereby rendering a promissory note given as consideration for the property unenforceable for lack of consideration?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Mazzant
No, the failure to physically transfer the original deed does not constitute a failure of legal delivery that would render the promissory note unenforceable. Delivery of a deed requires two elements: (1) the grantor must place the deed within the control of the grantee, and (2) the grantor must have the intention that the instrument become operative as a conveyance. The grantor's intent is the controlling factor, and manual delivery of the original document is not required. Here, the grantor's intent was evidenced by the promissory note's own language stating the lots were 'this day conveyed,' Billingsley's subsequent deposition testimony that Noell 'owns' the lots, and Noell's use of a copy of the deed to establish his homestead. Because legal delivery occurred, there was no failure of consideration, and the promissory note is enforceable. The court also rejected Noell's other defenses, finding that Crow-Billingsley owed Noell no fiduciary duty at the time of the transaction and that the parol evidence rule barred evidence of an alleged side agreement not to enforce the note.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that 'delivery' in property conveyance is a question of intent rather than a physical formality. By focusing on the totality of the circumstances—including the language of related documents and the parties' subsequent actions—the court affirmed that title can pass even if the grantee never physically possesses the original deed. This ruling limits the ability of a party to a transaction to later disavow an obligation by citing a technical, formalistic defect in the conveyance process. It also underscores the strength of the parol evidence rule in preventing parties from introducing evidence of oral side-agreements to contradict the clear terms of a written promissory note.
