{ "id": 6138088, "name": "Willie Kent GRIMMETT v. ESTATE OF Ruby G. BEASLEY", "name_abbreviation": "Grimmett v. Estate of Beasley", "decision_date": "1989-10-11", "docket_number": "CA 89-59", "first_page": "88", "last_page": "93", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 Ark. App. 88" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "777 S.W.2d 588" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "219 Ark. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1609164 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/219/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.W. 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1905, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718504 ], "year": 1905, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 S.W.2d 925", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ark. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1431976 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/187/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478523 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 Ark. 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719723 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/242/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1450006 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 Ark. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1174896 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/272/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 S.W.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 1069", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435184 ], "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/1069-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ark. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1611975 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/218/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ark. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1652975 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/222/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 Ark. 1018", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1633389 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/251/1018-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 531, "char_count": 9561, "ocr_confidence": 0.888, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7203058548574565e-07, "percentile": 0.7038197979882225 }, "sha256": "4f77eeb5d1e0e1f09081054b4c8de3b6fff121606e936efa26b676c4daccd656", "simhash": "1:d3c577b5e42e5091", "word_count": 1657 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:46.162740+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Corbin, C.J., and Mayfield, J., agree." ], "parties": [ "Willie Kent GRIMMETT v. ESTATE OF Ruby G. BEASLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nThis case is a dispute, in probate court, over the ownership of a 120 acre farm in Lafayette County, Arkansas. Appellant, W.K. Grimmett, Jr., is one of the nephews of Ruby G. Beasley. The issues presented are the legal effect of a deed executed by Mrs. Beasley to W.K. Grimmett, Sr., and his wife, Violet, and whether that deed had been delivered. The chancellor found that the deed, by its own terms, conveyed nothing until Mrs. Beasley\u2019s death and also found that there was no delivery. We reverse and remand.\nW.K. Grimmett, Sr., was the brother of Ruby Beasley and the father of the appellant here. Sometime during the mid-1970\u2019s W.K. Grimmett, Sr., began working his sister\u2019s 120 acre farm. In July of 1974, Mrs. Beasley paid approximately $5,000.00 for a John Deere tractor. The purchase order lists both W.K. Grim-mett, Sr., and Ruby Beasley as purchasers but was signed by Mr. Grimmett only. The tractor was delivered to Mr. Grimmett at the farm.\nThe appellant testified that in mid-March of 1975, Mrs. Beasley came to his parents\u2019 house. At this point it is necessary to explain that three versions of the deed in question appear in the transcript. The typewritten language of each deed is identical. Each purports to convey the 120 acre farm and the John Deere tractor to W.K. Grimmett, Sr., and his wife, Violet. Each contains the clause: \u201cThis deed is to become effective upon the death of the grantor herein.\u201d The copy of the deed referred to at trial as the \u201coriginal\u201d is signed by Mrs. Beasley, dated March 12, 1975, and notarized. It apparently has never been filed for record in the county deed records. This deed was found by Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Beasley\u2019s lawyer, after her death in her personal effects.\nThe deed introduced as Plaintiffs Exhibit 3 bears Mrs. Beasley\u2019s original signature, but is not notarized or dated, except for the year, 1975. This deed was found in Violet Grimmett\u2019s safety deposit box at the Bank of Bodcaw after her death in 1985. (W.K. Grimmett, Sr., died in 1984.)\nThe deed introduced into evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 also appears to bear Mrs. Beasley\u2019s original signature, is dated March 12,1975, but again is not notarized. This deed was found in a lock box in a closet at the W.K. Grimmett, Sr., home after Violet Grimmett\u2019s death.\nThe appellant testified that in mid-March of 1975, Mrs. Beasley came to his parents\u2019 house with the \u201coriginal\u201d deed. He testified that his parents had that deed in their possession on that day and that Mrs. Beasley took it with her when she left, saying she would put it in her lock box at the Bodcaw Bank, and left them with a \u201ccopy.\u201d Appellant also testified that it was common knowledge that Mrs. Beasley intended for the farm to eventually pass to him and then on to his own son, Vince Grimmett. He testified that she encouraged him and his wife to build a house on the farm. Lelia Boulware, Wilma Wilbanks, and Alma Hairr all testified that Mrs. Beasley wanted the farm to go, eventually, to W.K. Grimmett, Jr.\nMr. William Kelly, an attorney, testified that he drafted Mrs. Beasley\u2019s last will, which was dated June 10,1983. The will contained a provision leaving the 120 acre farm in question to W.K. Grimmett, Sr., and his wife and made the two of them the residuary beneficiaries for her estate. When Mrs. Beasley died in 1987, W.K. Grimmett, Sr., and his wife had predeceased her; therefore, the devise lapsed. See Eckert Heirs v. Harlow, Ex\u2019r., 251 Ark. 1018, 476 S.W.2d 244 (1972).\nMr. Kelly testified that he advised Mrs. Beasley that she still owned the farm and he said that she wanted to maintain ownership of it in case she ever needed money for medical expenses. Mrs. Beasley paid property taxes and the insurance on the farm, and Mr. Kelly testified that she collected $600.00 a year as rent on the farm. He also said that she paid personal property taxes on the tractor and took its depreciation as a tax deduction. He testified that he found the notarized deed in Mrs. Beasley\u2019s effects after her death. Kelly testified that Mrs. Beasley told him she had not \u201cdelivered\u201d the deed, but he also testified that he assumed it had not been delivered because it had been found in her belongings after her death. He was unaware of any other versions of the deed. He also testified that by the deed she was attempting to reserve a life estate.\nBilly Grimmett, another of Mrs. Beasley\u2019s nephews, testified that Mrs. Beasley once said, \u201cy\u2019all will own the farm.\u201d Bobby Grimmett, another nephew, testified that Mrs. Beasley gave him the impression that she still owned the farm.\nAfter having heard this evidence, the chancellor held that the deeds, \u201cby their own terms, do not convey anything until [Mrs. Beasley\u2019s] death.\u201d It appears from the judge\u2019s comments from the bench that he believed W.K. Grimmett, Jr.\u2019s testimony that Mrs. Beasley had passed the \u201coriginal\u201d deed around to Mr. Grimmett, Sr., and his wife before Mrs. Beasley left with it in her possession. But it is also apparent that the court relied on the fact that the notarized deed was found in Mrs. Beasley\u2019s possession after her death and that she had continued to pay taxes and insurance on the property during her lifetime in arriving at his conclusion that there had been no delivery.\nWe are persuaded that the chancellor was mistaken in his view of the law applicable to the facts in the case at bar. The chancellor\u2019s statement that the language of the deed in question conveys nothing until the grantor\u2019s death runs afoul of the holdings of the Arkansas Supreme Court. See, e.g., Lindsey v. Christian, 222 Ark. 169, 257 S.W.2d 935 (1953); Smith v. Smith, 218 Ark. 228, 235 S.W.2d 886 (1951); Owen v. Owen, 185 Ark. 1069, 51 S.W.2d 524 (1932). The effect of the provision in the deed here, that \u201cthis deed is to become effective upon the death of the grantor herein,\u201d which is virtually identical to the language in the deed in Smith, supra, is to convey the fee simple title subject only to the reservation of a life estate in the grantor.\nAs to the issue of delivery, if we concern ourselves for the moment only with the question of the delivery of the notarized deed (referred to as \u201cthe original\u201d in the proceedings below), we are persuaded that the chancellor followed the general rule applicable to the delivery of a deed instead of the rules applicable when the grantor reserves a life estate. In order to establish delivery it ordinarily must be shown that the grantor relinquished his dominion and control over the instrument. See Adams v. Dopieralla, 272 Ark. 30, 611 S.W.2d 750 (1981); Ransom v. Ransom, 202 Ark. 123, 149 S.W.2d 937 (1941). Ordinarily the grantor\u2019s continued use of the property and the payment of taxes on it are evidence that would tend to rebut a claim of delivery. See Adams, supra; Broomfield v. Broomfield, 242 Ark. 355, 413 S.W.2d 657 (1967). In addition, when the deed is found in the possession of the grantor at his death, normally there is a presumption of non-delivery. See Van Huss v. Wooten, 208 Ark. 332, 186 S.W.2d 174 (1945).\nHowever, when the deed reserves a life estate in the grantor (as it does here by operation of law), different rules apply. There is no longer a requirement that it must be shown that the instrument has passed beyond the grantor\u2019s control and dominion. See Broomfield, supra at 360. The fact that the deed is found among the effects of the grantor at his death raises no presumption against delivery when a life estate is reserved, see Johnson v. Young Men\u2019s Building & Loan Association, 187 Ark. 430, 60 S.W.2d 925 (1933), and under these circumstances the grantor\u2019s retention of possession and control over the property conveyed and his failure to record the deed are not inconsistent with delivery. See Cribbs v. Walker, 74 Ark. 104, 85 S.W. 244 (1905); Johnson, supra. The facts in Cribbs bear a marked similarity to those in the case at bar. There the husband had executed a deed in favor of his wife, reserving a life estate. Her testimony was that he showed her the deed, let her read it, and then took it back and put it in his safe where it remained until his death. The supreme court reversed the chancellor\u2019s decision and held, on de novo review, that there had been an effective delivery. The court\u2019s decision in Broomfield, supra, indicates that the distinction made in Cribbs is still a valid one.\nFinally, because of the court\u2019s characterization of plaintiffs exhibits numbered three and four as \u201ccopies,\u201d we are uncertain that the court gave adequate consideration to the fact that both instruments appear to bear original signatures, or that the court gave consideration to the question of whether those instruments were delivered, and, if so, the effect of that delivery. Even a deed that is undated and unacknowledged effectively passes title, as between the parties, from the date of delivery. Harvey v. Ledbetter, 219 Ark. 27, 240 S.W.2d 18 (1951).\nIn sum, we are persuaded that the chancellor was mistaken in his view of the law. Under all the circumstances of this case, and particularly because issues of credibility may enter into the decision here, we think it best to remand the case to the chancellor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, rather than to decide the factual issues de novo.\nReversed and Remanded.\nCorbin, C.J., and Mayfield, J., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Matt Keil, for appellant.", "Edward F. Cochran, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Willie Kent GRIMMETT v. ESTATE OF Ruby G. BEASLEY\nCA 89-59\n777 S.W.2d 588\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered October 11, 1989\nMatt Keil, for appellant.\nEdward F. Cochran, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0088-01", "first_page_order": 112, "last_page_order": 117 }