Blancett v. Blancett, 2004 NMSC 038 (NM 11/22/2004)
| Decision Date | 22 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 28,416. |
| Citation | 2004 NMSC 038 |
| Parties | RICHARD M. BLANCETT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LINN RICHARD BLANCETT, Defendant-Petitioner. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Swaim, Schrandt & Davidson, P.C., Donald E. Swaim, Judith D. Schrandt, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
Miller Stratvert, P.A., Alice Tomlinson Lorenz, Albuquerque, NM, Seth V. Bingham, Farmington, NM, for Respondent.
{1} The facts of this case raise a question about whether extrinsic evidence may be admitted to prove a grantor's intent in physically delivering an unambiguous deed to a grantee. Defendant-Petitioner Linn Blancett ("Linn") appeals from an order rescinding and nullifying two deeds that his father, Plaintiff-Respondent Richard Blancett ("Richard"), physically delivered to Linn's wife in 1993. In a memorandum opinion upholding the order, the Court of Appeals held that even when a grantor physically delivers an otherwise unambiguous deed to a grantee, extrinsic evidence may be introduced as to the grantor's intent at the time of delivery. On appeal, Linn urges us to adopt a blanket rule against such conditional deliveries of deeds, arguing that physical delivery of an unambiguous deed is absolute as a matter of law when made to a grantee, regardless of oral conditions. In declining to adopt such a rule, we emphasize that an effective delivery always requires intent by the grantor to make a present transfer, even if the deed is unconditional on its face and has been physically transferred to the grantee. Nonetheless, we hold that where the grantor has physically transferred an otherwise unconditional deed to a grantee, the grantee makes out a prima facie case of legal delivery, and the burden shifts to the grantor to rebut the presumption of intent to make a present and complete transfer of rights. Because here Richard rebutted this presumption with substantial evidence that he lacked such intent, we affirm.
{2} This case concerns the delivery of two deeds executed by Richard Blancett, a 79-year-old rancher in San Juan County. One of the deeds reserved a life estate in Richard and conveyed to Linn a remainder in the surface estate of much of Richard's property. The other reserved a life estate in Richard and conveyed a remainder in the mineral estate of the same property to both Linn and his brother Ed. In 1993 Richard physically delivered the two deeds ("the 1993 deeds") to Linn's wife. Although Richard had some difficulty reading, he nevertheless understood the deeds, though apparently he failed to notice that the property described encompassed more land than he in fact owned. Richard testified that he had the deeds drafted solely as a "stop-gap estate planning tool" until he could prepare more formal estate documents, and he indicated to Linn that he intended the delivery to be a conditional rather than an immediate conveyance. Specifically, Richard testified that he told Linn not to record the deeds unless Richard died or did something "crazy" before creating formal estate planning documents. While Linn disputes the context of this discussion and claims that the statement was made in jest, the trial judge found Richard's version to be credible and deemed Richard's statement to be an oral condition that precluded legal delivery of the deeds.
{3} In addition to his statements to Linn around the time of conveyance, Richard testified that four years following delivery of the deeds, with Linn's knowledge, he began an extensive process of formal estate planning, including drafting a will and limited family partnership agreement, which disposed of some of the same property covered by the 1993 deeds. Richard testified that during that time he continued to believe that he owned the property at issue in the deeds. Linn did not record the 1993 deeds for over eight years, until after Richard executed his estate documents, which conveyed to Linn less property than did the deeds.
{4} In 2001, Richard filed a complaint to nullify the 1993 deeds, claiming that because he expressly conditioned the conveyance, the physical transfer to Linn did not constitute legal delivery. The trial court denied Linn's motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary judgment. The trial court also denied Linn's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Richard's conduct subsequent to the delivery. After finding that Richard orally conditioned the delivery of the deeds and did not intend a present conveyance, the trial court entered an order nullifying and rescinding the deeds.
{5} The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's rulings in a memorandum opinion. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that (1) the rule for which Linn argues is contrary to New Mexico law that a grantor must intend to irrevocably part with dominion and control in order to legally deliver a deed; (2) extrinsic evidence is relevant to whether Richard intended to make a present delivery; and (3) substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Richard's conditional physical delivery did not constitute legal delivery. We affirm.
{6} On appeal, Petitioner Linn briefed four issues: (1) whether a grantor may impose oral conditions on the delivery of a deed to the grantee when those conditions do not appear on the face of the deed; (2) whether, as a matter of law, the 1993 deeds were legally delivered when Richard physically delivered them, without instruction, to Linn's wife; (3) whether it was proper for the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence in determining the validity of the 1993 deeds when the deeds were clear and unambiguous on their face; and (4) whether there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to grant recission of the deeds. We focus our discussion on the first issue. Because we find that the rule that Linn advocates is contrary to New Mexico's requirement of present intent in order to effectuate legal delivery, we decline to adopt it. We affirm the lower court as to the other legal and factual issues raised on this appeal.
{7} An effective legal delivery of a deed requires (1) intent by the grantor to make a present transfer and (2) a transfer of dominion and control. Den-Gar Enters. v. Romero, 94 N.M. 425, 428-29, 611 P.2d 1119, 1122-23 (Ct. App. 1980). It is well settled in New Mexico that a grantor's intent is central and may be determined from words, actions or surrounding circumstances during, preceding or following the execution of a deed. Id.; Waters v. Blocksom, 57 N.M. 368, 370, 258 P.2d 1135, 1136 (1953); Martinez v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 88, 91, 678 P.2d 1163, 1166 (1984).
{8} Here, both parties concede that a grantee's possession of a validly executed deed ordinarily raises a presumption of legal delivery, which a grantor may rebut with evidence negating his or her intent to make a present transfer. See Waters, 57 N.M. at 371, 258 P.2d at 1138; Vigil v. Sandoval, 106 N.M. 233, 236, 741 P.2d 836, 839 (Ct. App. 1987). Linn urges us, however, to hold that when a grantor physically delivers a deed to a grantee and no conditions of delivery appear on the face of the deed, the presumption becomes irrebuttable. Under such a rule, derived from common law, any oral conditions made by the grantor become void and legal delivery is absolute, regardless of the grantor's intent. See Ritchie v. Davis, 133 N.W.2d 312, 317 (Wis. 1965) (); 11 Thompson on Real Property § 94.06(g)(2) (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed. 2002); Robert G. Natelson, Modern Law of Deeds to Real Property § 17.7 (1992).
{9} The rule that Linn advocates stands in direct contrast to our established case law on deed delivery, which requires a threshold showing of a grantor's intent to irrevocably transfer title. See Den-Gar, 94 N.M. at 428-29, 611 P.2d at 1122-23; Waters, 57 N.M. at 370, 258 P.2d at 1136; Martinez, 101 N.M. at 91, 678 P.2d at 1166. While Linn attempts to distinguish the above cases because they did not involve oral instructions by the grantor not to record until a future occurrence, the distinction Linn draws is inapposite. In Den-Gar, for instance, the court upheld the trial court's finding that physical delivery to the grantee was ineffective because the grantor lacked the requisite intent to make a present transfer of title. 94 N.M. at 429, 611 P.2d at 1123. Linn argues that Den-Gar turned not on the grantor's intent to deliver but on the fact that the grantor had already issued a conflicting deed to his mother. The court's holding, however, clearly rested on the grantor's lack of present intent to divest himself of title in the second deed. Id. at 428-29, 611 P.2d at 1122-23 ().
{10} Similarly, Waters upheld a lower court's ruling that the grantor lacked the necessary intent to deliver a deed to his brother, the grantee, by considering extrinsic evidence such as the grantee's insistence that he would not record the deed during the grantor's lifetime. 57 N.M. at 368, 371-72, 258 P.2d at 1135, 1137-38. In summarily attributing the court's holding to the fact that the deed was found in the grantor's possession after his death, Linn overlooks the fact that possession was only one of the many factors the court examined in concluding the grantor lacked intent to make an irrevocable transfer when he passed the deed to the grantee. Id.
{11} Further, in Martinez, this Court expressly rejected the theory that there can be no conditional delivery to a grantee unless the conditions are expressed in the deed itself. 101 N.M. at 90, 678 P.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial