## Facts

- Clevenger owned a building and lot in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
- Peay approached Clevenger about trading her Bartlesville property for an apartment building in Tulsa that J. D. Simmons claimed to own.
- Clevenger signed a deed conveying her Bartlesville property to Simmons and gave the deed to Peay to hold in escrow.
- The deed was to be held until Clevenger inspected the Tulsa apartment building and decided whether to accept the proposed exchange; if she did not approve, the deed was to be returned to her.
- After inspecting the Tulsa property, Clevenger did not approve the trade and refused to go forward.
- Clevenger left Bartlesville for roughly a month.
- When she returned, she discovered that her deed to Simmons had been delivered and recorded without her knowledge or consent.
- Simmons then executed and delivered a second deed conveying the Bartlesville property to Moore, who claimed to have purchased for value without notice of any escrow problem.
- Clevenger sued to recover possession of the Bartlesville property and to cancel (1) her deed to Simmons and (2) Simmons’s deed to Moore.
- The trial court dismissed Clevenger’s action (treating the challenge as legally insufficient), and Clevenger appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed placed in escrow and delivered to the grantee without performance of the escrow conditions and without the grantor’s knowledge or consent is void.
2. Whether a purchaser for value without notice from that grantee can acquire title against the original grantor.
3. Whether Clevenger’s allegations and proof were sufficient to avoid dismissal and require further proceedings.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- A deed wrongfully delivered from escrow to the grantee, without satisfaction of the delivery conditions and without the grantor’s knowledge or consent, is void.
- Because the grantee received no title under a void delivery, a later purchaser from the grantee—even one paying value and claiming lack of notice—takes no title as against the original grantor.
- The trial court erred by dismissing Clevenger’s case; she was entitled to proceed on her claim for possession and cancellation of the deeds.

## Legal Principles

- A deed transfers title only upon a valid delivery by the grantor or by someone authorized to deliver on the grantor’s behalf.
- When a deed is deposited in escrow, the escrow holder’s authority to deliver is limited to the stated conditions of the escrow.
- Delivery of an escrow deed in violation of escrow conditions, and without the grantor’s knowledge or consent, is not a valid delivery and renders the deed void.
- A void deed passes no title; recording and a later conveyance cannot supply title that never transferred.
- A purchaser cannot obtain better title than the seller possesses; therefore, a purchaser from a grantee who acquired only a void deed obtains no title against the original grantor.

## Conclusion

Because Clevenger alleged and offered proof that her deed was placed with Peay to be held until she inspected and approved the Tulsa property, that she did not approve the trade, and that the deed was nonetheless delivered and recorded without her consent, the deed to Simmons was void; Moore therefore could not acquire title from Simmons, and the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.


Clevenger v. Moore, 259 P. 219 (1927)