## Facts

- Juanita Vasquez Carr owned the disputed real property.
- In July 1992, she executed a will naming Ignacio Vasquez as independent executor and naming Ignacio and Jose Vasquez as sole beneficiaries.
- On February 6, 1993, she executed a quitclaim deed conveying the same property to Brigido D. Vasquez.
- Juanita left the signed deed with her attorney, instructing him not to file it and not to inform anyone, including Brigido, until after her death.
- Juanita retained uninterrupted possession, use, and benefit of the property until her death on September 29, 1993.
- After her death, the attorney mailed the deed for recording; it was recorded on October 6, 1993, and Brigido was notified.
- The will was admitted to probate in January 1994.
- In February 1994, Ignacio, as executor, executed a special warranty deed conveying the property to Ignacio and Jose under the will.
- The parties tried the title dispute on stipulated facts; the trial court quieted title in Brigido, finding effective delivery when Juanita tendered the deed to her attorney with post-death recording instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether tendering a signed deed to the grantor’s attorney, with instructions to record and deliver it to the grantee after the grantor’s death, constitutes valid delivery transferring title during the grantor’s lifetime.
2. Whether the grantor’s continued possession and enjoyment of the property, secrecy, and the grantee’s lack of knowledge negate delivery and render the instrument testamentary.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment quieting title in Brigido.
- The court held that the deed was effectively delivered when Juanita tendered it to her attorney on February 6, 1993, with instructions for post-death recording and delivery.
- Because title transferred as of the delivery date, the estate (and executor) lacked authority to convey the property later under the will.

## Legal Principles

- Delivery of a deed depends primarily on the grantor’s intent to presently divest dominion and control over the deed and the conveyed interest.
- Delivery may be accomplished through a third person (including the grantor’s attorney) for later delivery to the grantee if the grantor intends the conveyance to be irrevocable at the time of deposit.
- Postponing recordation, physical transfer of the document, or the grantee’s knowledge until after the grantor’s death does not prevent effective delivery if the grantor has relinquished control.
- The grantor’s continued use and possession of the property until death is not dispositive of non-delivery and is consistent with a present conveyance with postponed enjoyment.
- An attorney’s ethical obligation to return a client’s property upon request does not, by itself, establish that the grantor legally reserved a right to revoke the deed.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that a deed placed with the grantor’s attorney for post-death recording and delivery can be validly delivered during the grantor’s lifetime when the grantor’s actions show an intent to relinquish control and make an irrevocable present transfer, defeating a later inconsistent devise under the grantor’s will.


Vasquez v. Vasquez, 973 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998)