## Facts

- Edward V. Desmond executed a warranty deed in 1974 naming his daughter, Elizabeth A. Lenhart, as grantee of his Cheyenne, Wyoming residence.
- Desmond testified the purpose was to arrange that Lenhart would receive his property if he died, not to transfer ownership immediately.
- After execution, Desmond placed the deed in his bank safe deposit box and added Lenhart to the signature card, giving her access; Desmond retained control and did not hand the deed to her.
- In July 1983, Desmond was injured in an auto accident and hospitalized; Lenhart accessed the box to retrieve insurance policies.
- After Desmond’s release, he discovered the deed missing; the parties disputed who removed it.
- In October 1983, Lenhart recorded the deed and refused to return it, stating she sought to prevent Desmond from mortgaging the home and spending proceeds on alcohol.
- Desmond sued to invalidate the deed for lack of delivery and lack of present intent; Lenhart counterclaimed that the deed was a valid gift.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the deed was not delivered, despite Lenhart’s possession and recording of the deed.
2. Whether the circumstances established actual or constructive delivery as a matter of law.
3. Whether equity required reformation of the deed to reserve a life estate in Desmond with a remainder in Lenhart.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the deed and restoring title to Desmond.
- The court held the evidence supported the finding that Desmond lacked intent to presently divest himself of title; therefore, delivery was not effective.
- The presumption of delivery arising from Lenhart’s possession and recording was rebutted by evidence of Desmond’s contrary intent (with no third-party rights implicated).
- The court rejected constructive delivery based on the safe deposit box arrangement because the factfinder could conclude Desmond retained dominion and intended only a transfer at death.
- The court denied reformation to a life estate/remainder because the record did not show an agreement or mistake warranting rewriting the instrument.

## Legal Principles

- A deed is effective only upon delivery, which requires the grantor’s intent to presently transfer title; intent is the determinative factor.
- If there is no physical transfer, constructive delivery may be found from circumstances, but only if they show present intent to pass title and relinquish control.
- A grantee’s possession of a recorded deed creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery; absent third-party rights, it may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A deed intended to operate only at the grantor’s death is testamentary in character and does not satisfy the present-transfer requirement for delivery.
- Reformation is an equitable remedy that generally requires proof the instrument fails to reflect the parties’ actual agreement (such as through mutual mistake); it is not used to create an interest the grantor never intended to convey.

## Conclusion

The court upheld invalidation of the recorded deed because the grantor did not intend an immediate transfer of title, and neither access to a safe deposit box nor later recording supplied the missing element of present intent required for delivery; equitable reformation to a life estate was also unwarranted.


Lenhart v. Desmond, 705 P.2d 338 (Wyo. 1985)