Later, the attorney stated that the title description must have been given to him by either Leora or Dallas, that a title search was not performed, and that he would not have prepared the deed if he knew that Leora owned only a life estate. The attorney also prepared a deed reconveying David's, Dallas' and one half of Donald's lot to Dallas. All three of the brothers admitted that everyone in the family knew that the lot was David's when Leora died and nothing occurred that would have indicated any inconsistency with the record title.īut, in May 1996, when Leora's health and eyesight began to fail, Dallas took her to an attorney for the purpose of preparing a new will in which the three sons shared equally in Leora's estate. Between 19, David and Joann visited Leora and stored their clothes and boat on the lot. Leora did not reconvey David's lot because she moved a mobile home on it and resided in it as her homestead. She then reconveyed the two sons respective lots to them and their wives without reserving a life estate so that each could obtain loans secured by a mortgage on their respective lots. The recorded deeds were mailed by the clerk to Leora, who resided in Ohio.īetween 19, Leora purchased mobile homes for Dallas and Donald who had moved to Florida. Donald, Dallas, and Dallas' wife, Wilma, accompanied Leora to the Citrus County Clerk's office to record the deeds in 1979. She reserved a life estate to herself in each of the three deeds. Leora Mattox divided a three-acre parcel of land in Citrus County into three one-acre lots by properly executing a general warranty deed to each of the lots naming as grantee, each of her three sons, David, Dallas, and Donald. Go toĭavid and Joann Mattox (David) appeal a final judgment finding against them on their action for quiet title against David's brother, Dallas Mattox.
The judgment does not determine where title to David's lot is vested, rendering the litigation valueless with respect to determination of title. After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment finding that none of the litigants were entitled to succeed on their claims except David and Joann who were entitled to a judgment for unjust enrichment or betterment in the amount of $2,500.Presumption of delivery can only be overcome by showing that no delivery was made and no delivery was intended. Others hold that recordation constitutes prima facie evidence of delivery and creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery, which when coupled with other evidence showing an intention to deliver the deed is evidence of absolute delivery. Some authorities hold that recordation of a deed is effective as legal delivery of the deed in the absence of fraud on the grantor. Jur.2d § 72 Delivery for Recording (West 1999). There is a dichotomy in Florida law regarding the effect recordation has on the delivery. Delivery of a deed by the grantor and acceptance by the grantee are essential to transfer title.
0 kommentar(er)
