Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialwill
trialappellantappellee

Related Cases

Mathewson v. Primeau, 64 Wash.2d 929, 395 P.2d 183
View Case »
Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842
View Case »
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 119 S.Ct. 1624, 143 L.Ed.2d 882, 48 ERC 1513, 67 USLW 3681, 67 USLW 4345, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,133, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3846, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4908, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 3019, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 247
View Case »
Roberts v. Rhodes, 231 Kan. 74, 643 P.2d 116, 3 Ed. Law Rep. 738
View Case »
General Motors Corp. v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2005 WL 8175039
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Parramore v. Parramore, 371 So.2d 123

Facts

Fred Parramore executed inter vivos deeds in May 1963, creating life estates for himself and his wife with remainder interests for his four children. Although the deeds were signed and placed in a safe deposit box, they were never delivered to the children during his lifetime. After Fred's death in November 1974, his son Alney contested the validity of the remainder interests, arguing that the lack of delivery meant the lands should pass equally to all four children under the residuary clause of Fred's will.

Fred Parramore's estate was almost entirely in Gadsden County lands, and his plan was to parcel and convey those lands to his children at his death. He implemented that plan by inter vivos deeds purporting to convey life estates to himself and his wife with remainder interests to his children. In May 1963, the deeds were executed and acknowledged, but not delivered to the grantees.

Issue

Did Fred Parramore's actions constitute a constructive delivery of the deeds to his children, thereby vesting the remainder interests in them before his death?

Did Fred Parramore's actions constitute a constructive delivery of the deeds to his children, thereby vesting the remainder interests in them before his death?

Rule

Delivery of a deed is essential for its validity, and while actual manual delivery is not always required, the intent of the grantor is the determining factor. Delivery can be established through actions and declarations that indicate the grantor's intent to relinquish control of the deed.

Delivery is “the life of a deed”; without it no deed is good, though “the intent to deliver is clear and failure to deliver due to accident.” Lance v. Smith, 123 Fla. 461, 468, 167 So. 366, 369 (1936). Yet delivery is not an exact ceremony, to be done invariably in a particular way. The clearest delivery is by “a manual tradition of the prepared deed with accompanying words or circumstances showing an appropriate intent.” 1 R. Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions, Section 9.01 at 136 (1977).

Analysis

The court analyzed Fred Parramore's conduct over the years, noting that he signed the deeds, placed them in a safe deposit box, and consistently indicated that he considered the remainder interests vested. His actions, including instructing his children to retrieve the deeds upon his death and his statements to others about the land being deeded away, supported the conclusion that he intended to deliver the deeds, thus fulfilling the requirements for constructive delivery.

We believe there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's decision that Fred Parramore, during his life, vested remainder interests in his children by conduct recognizable as delivery of the deeds. We need not rely on the troublesome test suggested by disjunctives in the first-quoted passages from Smith v. Owen: that delivery is complete if the grantor evinces an intention to deliver, though he retains custody.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Fred Parramore's conduct constituted a symbolic and constructive delivery of the deeds, vesting the remainder interests in his children before his death.

The court found that the grantor relinquished the deed, effected delivery, and perfected the conveyance during his lifetime: It was, under the circumstances, equivalent to a manual delivery. The intent to deliver the deed was made plain.

Who won?

Eudell, Bernice, and Iris prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that Fred Parramore had effectively delivered the deeds through his actions and intent.

Appellant Alney Parramore and his brother and sisters, appellees Eudell, Bernice, and Iris, are the four surviving children of Fred Parramore of Gadsden County, who died there in November 1974.

You must be