## Facts

- Zella Bacon owned a 100-acre tract in Stoddard County, Missouri.
- In 1966, Bacon executed a deed granting (1) a life estate to her brother, Gus Gillespie, and (2) a remainder in fee to Gus’s sons (the defendants).
- The attorney delivered the deed to Bacon at her home; Bacon signed and acknowledged it, and then handed it to Gus when he arrived.
- Gus immediately objected and stated words to the effect that Bacon could “tear it up,” and the deed was torn up later that day.
- Bacon summoned the attorney back, reported that Gus had torn up the deed, and asked what would happen to the land; the attorney advised that Gus “just doesn’t get it.”
- Gus died in 1968; a portion of the torn deed was later found among his papers, and the deed was never recorded.
- After 1966, Bacon continued to treat the property as her own by collecting rents (later through a guardian and then her estate) and keeping the land assessed in her name for tax purposes for years.
- After Bacon’s death in 1974, Bacon’s daughter, Frances Gillespie Underwood, and Gus’s sons asserted competing ownership claims under Bacon’s will unless the 1966 deed had transferred title.
- Underwood sued for partition alleging cotenancy; the defendants denied her interest and sought to quiet title based on the 1966 deed.
- The trial court found no effective delivery and acceptance of the deed, held Underwood owned an undivided one-third interest, and ordered partition.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1966 deed was effectively delivered and accepted so as to transfer title from Bacon.
2. Whether the life tenant’s rejection prevented the remainder interest from vesting in the named remaindermen.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment ordering partition and recognizing Underwood’s undivided one-third interest.
- The court held the deed did not operate to transfer title because there was no effective delivery coupled with acceptance.
- The court held Gus’s rejection defeated the entire conveyance, preventing the remainder interest in the sons from vesting.

## Legal Principles

- A deed transfers title only upon delivery with the grantor’s intent that it presently pass title, and acceptance by the grantee.
- Although acceptance may often be presumed for beneficial conveyances, evidence of rejection can defeat the presumption and support a finding of non-acceptance.
- A grantee’s conduct inconsistent with taking under the deed, including tearing up the deed and objecting to the conveyance, supports a finding of rejection and non-acceptance.
- The grantor’s continued exercise of ownership incidents (such as collecting rents and maintaining tax assessments in the grantor’s name) may support an inference that no effective delivery and acceptance occurred.
- When a deed is structured as a unified grant of a life estate with remainder, rejection by the life tenant may prevent the deed from becoming operative as to both the life estate and the remainder.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed partition because the 1966 deed failed to transfer title: the life tenant rejected the conveyance, the grantor continued to act as owner, and the remainder to the sons did not vest where acceptance of the life estate was treated as a condition to the deed’s effectiveness.


Underwood v. Gillespie, 594 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)