## Facts

- J.W. and Maggie Chandler executed a 1964 deed affecting 270 acres.
- The deed granted Maggie a life estate in an undivided one-half interest and reserved to J.W. a life estate in an undivided one-half interest with survivorship for the lifetime of the survivor.
- The deed conveyed the remainder in fee simple to their son, J.P. Chandler.
- J.W. deposited the deed with a local bank and instructed the bank to deliver it to J.P. at J.W.’s death.
- Under the bank’s general practice, a depositor could reclaim deposited documents on request, but J.W. never sought return of the deed and J.P. never attempted to obtain it before J.W.’s death.
- J.W. died in 1972 and Maggie died in 1975; the bank delivered the deed to J.P. after J.W.’s death, and J.P. took possession after Maggie’s death.
- In 1980, six siblings sued to set aside the deed, alleging undue influence, J.W.’s mental incapacity, and lack of legal delivery.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed is legally delivered when the grantor deposits it with a third party to be delivered to the grantee upon the grantor’s death, where the third party’s ordinary practice would allow the grantor to retrieve the deed.
2. Whether the deed was merely left for “safekeeping” (making delivery ineffective) or was placed beyond the grantor’s control with intent to make the conveyance effective.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment upholding the deed.
- The court held that the deed was validly delivered upon deposit with the bank, based on the grantor’s instruction to deliver it to the grantee at death and the evidence of intent to relinquish dominion.
- The court treated the case as falling within the exception permitting effective delivery through a third party for post-death transfer when the grantor does not retain a right of recall.

## Legal Principles

- Delivery is essential to the validity of a deed and depends on the grantor’s intent to make the instrument presently operative.
- Ordinarily, if a deed is not delivered during the grantor’s life, it conveys no title; an exception exists when the grantor delivers the deed to a third person for delivery to the grantee after death and relinquishes control.
- No effective delivery occurs when the deed is left with a third party solely for safekeeping or remains subject to the grantor’s reserved right to reclaim and revoke it.
- The controlling inquiry is whether the grantor surrendered dominion over the deed; intent may be inferred from instructions and subsequent conduct, not solely from a third party’s general business practices.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the conveyance because the evidence supported a finding that J.W. intended his bank deposit and delivery instruction to be final, placing the deed beyond his dominion, so delivery was legally effective even though the grantee received the deed only after the grantor’s death.


Chandler v. Chandler, 409 So. 2d 780 (Ala. 1981)