## Facts

- Richard M. Blancett, an elderly rancher, executed two deeds in 1993 conveying remainder interests in surface and mineral estates while reserving life estates.
- The deeds were physically handed to Linn Blancett’s wife and were facially unconditional.
- Richard stated the deeds were a temporary estate-planning measure and instructed Linn not to record them unless Richard died or became incapacitated before completing formal planning.
- Richard later executed formal estate-planning documents disposing of the same property but giving Linn a smaller interest than the 1993 deeds.
- In 2001, after learning of the reduced interest under the later estate plan, Linn recorded the 1993 deeds.
- Richard sued to rescind and nullify the deeds, asserting there was no legal delivery because he lacked intent to make a present conveyance and the transfer was conditional.

## Issues

1. Whether physical transfer of a facially unconditional deed to the grantee creates conclusive delivery or only a rebuttable presumption of delivery.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence, including oral conditions and surrounding circumstances, is admissible to determine the grantor’s intent to make a present transfer at the time of physical delivery.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the judgment rescinding and nullifying the 1993 deeds.
- The court held that effective delivery requires the grantor’s intent to make a present transfer, even when the deed is unconditional on its face and physically transferred.
- Physical delivery creates a prima facie case of delivery that shifts the burden to the grantor to rebut intent to presently convey.
- Extrinsic evidence is admissible to rebut the presumption and to determine whether the grantor intended a present, complete transfer.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Richard did not intend a present conveyance in 1993, including his instructions not to record, his later estate planning inconsistent with immediate transfer, and Linn’s delayed recording.

## Legal Principles

- Legal delivery of a deed requires both physical transfer and the grantor’s intent to make a present transfer of property rights.
- Physical delivery of an otherwise unconditional deed creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery; it is not conclusive as a matter of law.
- A grantor’s intent may be shown by words, actions, and surrounding circumstances before, during, and after execution and transfer of the deed.
- Extrinsic evidence offered to prove or disprove delivery is admissible and is not barred merely because the deed is facially unambiguous.

## Conclusion

The court held that physical handover of a facially unconditional deed establishes only a rebuttable presumption of delivery, and that extrinsic evidence may show the grantor lacked present intent to convey; because the grantor rebutted that presumption, the deeds were properly rescinded.


Blancett v. Blancett, 136 N.M. 573, 102 P.3d 640 (N.M. 2004)