Underwood v. Gillespie
594 S.W.2d 372, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2428 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a deed granting a life estate with a remainder interest to be valid, there must be delivery and acceptance. The rejection of the deed by the life tenant, to whom delivery was tendered, invalidates the entire conveyance, including the remainder interest, when the grantor's subsequent actions indicate an intent to treat the deed as ineffective.
Facts:
- On March 9, 1966, Zellk Bacon executed a deed granting a life estate in her 100-acre property to her brother, Gus Gillespie, with the remainder interest going to his sons (the defendants).
- On the same day, Bacon handed the deed to Gillespie in the presence of her attorney.
- Gillespie became upset, stating Bacon could not give the property to some of his children but not all, and suggested she could tear up the deed.
- Later that day, Gillespie tore up the deed, and Bacon observed the torn pieces in her wastebasket.
- From 1966 until a guardian was appointed in 1972, Bacon continued to collect rent, pay taxes, and otherwise treat the property as her own.
- In September 1969, Bacon instructed her attorney to draft a new will devising the same property to the plaintiff, though this will was never executed.
- Gus Gillespie died on October 20, 1968, and half of the torn deed was found among his papers, which was the first time his sons learned of its existence.
- Zellk Bacon died on February 10, 1974, with a will that included a residuary clause under which the plaintiff and defendants were devisees.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action for partition in the Stoddard County trial court, asserting co-ownership under the residuary clause of Zellk Bacon's will.
- Defendants filed an answer denying the plaintiff's claim and asked the court to quiet title in their names, based on the 1966 deed.
- The trial court found the deed invalid for want of proper delivery and acceptance, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and decreed partition.
- Defendants, as appellants, 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 the rejection of a deed by the life tenant, to whom the deed was physically handed, prevent the remainder interests from vesting in the remaindermen?
Opinions:
Majority - Prewitt, Judge
Yes. The rejection of the deed by the life tenant prevents the remainder interests from vesting because a valid delivery requires acceptance. The controlling element in determining delivery is the grantor's intent, and the grantor's actions after the rejection demonstrated that she considered the deed invalid. The court reasoned that acceptance is a necessary component of delivery. Gus Gillespie's immediate and hostile reaction, followed by his tearing up the deed, constituted a clear rejection. Crucially, the grantor, Mrs. Bacon, appeared to acquiesce in this rejection by continuing to exercise all incidents of ownership over the property for years, including collecting rents, paying taxes, and attempting to devise the property to someone else in a new will. The court held that to enforce the remainder interest would create a new instrument contrary to the grantor's apparent intent, which was predicated on the life tenant's acceptance of the entire conveyance scheme.
Analysis:
This case highlights the paramount importance of the grantor's intent in determining whether a valid delivery and acceptance of a deed have occurred. It establishes that the rejection by a life tenant, who is the intended first recipient of an estate, can defeat the entire conveyance, including subsequent remainder interests. The decision moves beyond a mechanical application of property rules, instead focusing on the grantor's behavior following the purported transfer as key evidence of their intent. This precedent suggests that courts will not sever and enforce a remainder interest if doing so would contradict the grantor's overall donative plan, which was frustrated by the failure of the preceding estate.
