## Facts

- Maria Encarnacion (E.) Sandoval, a widow, owned a tract of land with a home and improvements in Chimayó, New Mexico.
- Her grandson, Johnny R. Sandoval, lived with her and helped care for her during her later years.
- On March 11, 1978, Maria executed a notarized instrument titled “Warranty Deed” naming Johnny as grantee.
- A notary, David Ortega, prepared the deed; Maria instructed him to include language making the deed effective only upon her death because she wanted Johnny to have the property while still keeping security for herself during life.
- The deed contained a typed “Conditions” clause: “This instrument shall become effective only upon the death of Grantor only. If grantor survives grantee this instrument will be void.”
- Johnny was a minor at the time, so Maria gave the deed to Johnny’s parents for recording; Johnny’s father recorded it.
- After recordation, Johnny paid property taxes and made repairs on the home.
- Maria told a relative, Gloria Ann Vigil, that she had given the house to Johnny and that Johnny should be consulted regarding repairs or improvements.
- Maria died in 1981.
- Dora C. Vigil (as personal representative of Maria’s estate and individually) and Flora S. Leyba sued to cancel and rescind the deed, arguing it was an invalid testamentary transfer for failure to satisfy will formalities and, alternatively, that no valid delivery occurred.
- After a bench trial, the district court upheld the deed as a valid conveyance of a present interest and found delivery; it quieted title in Johnny. The plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “Warranty Deed,” despite stating it would become effective only upon the grantor’s death, was a valid deed conveying a present interest or an invalid testamentary instrument not executed as a will.
2. Whether the deed was validly delivered when the grantor gave it to the minor grantee’s parents for recording and retained use and occupancy during life.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings and conclusions regarding intent, delivery, and the nature of the interest conveyed.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment quieting title in Johnny R. Sandoval.
- The court held the instrument was a valid deed and conveyed a present interest in fee title to Johnny, while postponing possession and enjoyment until Maria’s death.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence of delivery, including Maria’s act of having the deed recorded through Johnny’s parents and the parties’ conduct after execution.
- The court held the district court’s findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence under the appellate standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- A written instrument in deed form may be treated as a deed rather than a will if the grantor intended a present transfer of an interest in land, even when possession or enjoyment is postponed until the grantor’s death.
- Language stating a deed becomes “effective upon death” does not automatically make the instrument testamentary; courts examine the deed as a whole and the circumstances showing the grantor’s intent.
- Delivery depends primarily on the grantor’s intent to make the conveyance operative; delivery may be shown by circumstances, not only by handing the deed directly to the grantee.
- Delivery may be accomplished through a third party for the grantee’s benefit, including when the grantee is a minor; recordation and later conduct consistent with ownership can support a finding of delivery.
- On appeal from a bench trial, the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and will not disturb findings supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Vigil v. Sandoval affirmed that Maria Sandoval’s warranty deed to her minor grandson, though stating it would become effective only upon her death, operated as a present conveyance of fee title with possession postponed until death, and that delivery was adequately shown by her act of recording the deed through the child’s parents and by the parties’ subsequent statements and conduct.


Vigil v. Sandoval, 741 P.2d 836, 106 N.M. 233 (1987)