## Facts

- Vincent LeMehaute owned and lived in a residence with his first wife and their two daughters, Renee and Lorna.
- After Vincent’s first wife died, he continued to live in the home.
- Vincent later married Ruth M. LeMehaute, who moved into the home with her son (Vincent’s stepson).
- Wanting to avoid probate complications and to arrange for the home to pass within the family, Vincent consulted attorney Colley on September 18, 1975 about putting the property into joint tenancy.
- Attorney Colley advised Vincent not to place all children on title because it could be difficult to manage title when a child is underage or not readily available; instead, Vincent was advised to name one adult, local child to hold title in a way that would benefit the family.
- A deed was prepared conveying the property to Vincent, Ruth, and Vincent’s adult daughter Renee as joint tenants; Vincent’s other daughter Lorna, then a minor, was not named.
- Vincent read and signed the deed and caused it to be recorded.
- After recording, Vincent retrieved the deed and kept it in his sole possession, locked in a cabinet at home.
- Renee was not told about the deed when it was executed and recorded; Vincent first disclosed it to her about two months later, in November 1975.
- When Vincent told Renee, he asked her to sign another conveyance to add Lorna and Ruth’s son as additional grantees; after speaking with her own lawyer, Renee refused.
- Later, Vincent sought Renee’s cooperation on property matters that required a joint tenant’s consent, including signing a mortgage and endorsing an insurance check for roof repairs; Renee refused.
- Vincent and Ruth filed suit seeking reformation of the recorded deed to remove Renee as a grantee, asserting that the deed was never effectively delivered to or accepted by Renee and that Vincent did not intend to give her a present ownership interest.
- The trial court found no present conveyance to Renee and reformed the deed to delete the grant to her.
- Renee appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed naming Vincent, Ruth, and Renee as joint tenants effected a present conveyance to Renee through valid delivery and acceptance, despite Vincent’s recording of the deed.
2. Whether the trial court properly reformed the instrument to remove Renee as a grantee based on the evidence of Vincent’s intent and the absence of delivery and acceptance.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District affirmed.
- The court agreed that the deed did not operate as a present conveyance of an interest to Renee because there was no effective delivery to her and no acceptance.
- Any presumption of delivery arising from execution and recording was overcome by evidence that Vincent kept exclusive control of the deed, did not tell Renee about it at the time, and intended the arrangement as a post-death estate plan rather than an immediate transfer.
- Because Renee did not become a present joint tenant, the court upheld the decree reforming the deed to nullify the recital of grant to her.

## Legal Principles

- A deed is effective only upon delivery, which requires the grantor’s intent that the instrument operate immediately to pass a present interest, along with conduct consistent with surrender of dominion over the deed.
- Recording may support an inference or presumption of delivery, but it is not conclusive; the presumption can be rebutted by proof that the grantor did not intend a present transfer and retained control of the instrument and the property.
- Acceptance by the grantee is required for a conveyance; where the grantee lacks knowledge of the deed at the time of execution and the surrounding facts show no present-transfer intent, acceptance is not established merely because the deed was recorded.
- Equity may reform a deed to conform the record to the transaction actually intended where the evidence shows that the writing, as recorded, does not reflect a completed present conveyance to the named grantee.

## Conclusion

LeMehaute held that Vincent’s recording of a deed naming his adult daughter Renee as a joint tenant did not, by itself, create a present joint tenancy interest where Vincent retained exclusive possession and control of the deed, did not disclose it to Renee until months later, and acted only to arrange succession and avoid probate rather than to transfer present ownership; the court therefore affirmed the judgment reforming the deed to remove Renee as a grantee.


LeMehaute v. LeMehaute, 585 S.W.2d 276 (1979)