Pipes v. Sevier
694 S.W.2d 918, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 3544 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The delivery of a deed to a third party, with unconditional instructions to deliver it to the grantee upon the grantor's death, constitutes a valid and irrevocable present conveyance of a future interest, provided the grantor relinquishes all dominion and control over the instrument at the time of its deposit.
Facts:
- Ralph and Leone Pipes, parents to Keith and Beverly, owned three tracts of land, including the 'Home Place.'
- Based on a long-standing family understanding originating from their father's will, Keith was to inherit the Home Place and Beverly was to inherit the other two farms.
- In November 1972, Leone Pipes executed deeds conveying the Home Place to Keith and the other farms to Beverly.
- Leone delivered the executed deeds in sealed envelopes to her attorney, Leman Atherton, with signed, written instructions on each envelope to deliver them to the respective child upon her death.
- At the time of the delivery, Attorney Atherton advised Leone that the act was final, irrevocable, and that she would not be able to retrieve the deeds.
- In March 1981, approximately ten years later, Leone and Beverly attempted to retrieve the deeds from Atherton, but he refused to return them.
- Following Atherton's refusal, Leone executed a series of new, conflicting deeds concerning the Home Place, ultimately attempting to convey it to Beverly, who then conveyed it to herself and her son, Roddy Sevier.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith Pipes filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Beverly Sevier and Roddy Sevier in the trial court to nullify subsequent conveyances.
- Leone Pipes initially joined the suit as a party plaintiff alongside her son, Keith.
- After Keith Pipes died during the litigation, his widow, Violet Pipes, and their four children were substituted as plaintiffs.
- Following her son's death, Leone Pipes successfully moved to be deleted as a plaintiff and added as a party defendant.
- The plaintiffs amended their petition to one to remove a cloud from the title.
- The defendants, Beverly and Roddy Sevier, filed a counterclaim to quiet title.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Keith Pipes' heirs.
- The defendants, Beverly Sevier, Roddy Sevier, and Leone Pipes, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 delivery of a signed deed to a third-party escrow agent, with instructions to deliver it to the grantee upon the grantor's death, constitute a valid and irrevocable delivery when the grantor intends to relinquish all dominion and control over the deed at that time?
Opinions:
Majority - Shanglor, Judge
Yes, such a delivery constitutes a valid and irrevocable conveyance. The determinative factor in the delivery of a deed is the grantor's intent at the moment of transfer. When a grantor delivers a deed to a third party with instructions for it to be handed to the grantee upon the grantor's death, and the grantor reserves no right to recall or control the instrument, a valid delivery has occurred. This action immediately vests in the grantee a present, fixed right of future enjoyment, with only the possession being postponed. The court found credible the testimony of attorney Atherton that he advised Leone Pipes the delivery was final and irrevocable, and that she understood and intended this result. Her subsequent actions and contradictory testimony were deemed not credible, especially since she changed her position after her son Keith's death. Under the 'relation-back' doctrine, the title is considered to have transferred at the moment of the initial delivery to the escrow agent, and the intervening death of the grantee does not invalidate the conveyance.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the legal principle that intent is the paramount element in the delivery of a deed. It solidifies the 'relation-back' doctrine for deeds delivered in escrow, ensuring that a grantee's rights vest at the time of the initial deposit with a third party, not at the time of the final physical delivery. The decision underscores that once a grantor makes an unconditional delivery to an escrow agent, they cannot unilaterally revoke the transfer, even if they physically create and record subsequent, conflicting deeds. This precedent is significant for estate planning and real property law, as it provides stability and predictability for conveyances intended to take effect upon death, protecting the grantee's interest from the grantor's subsequent change of heart.
