1) Does the evidence that Gus having torn up the deed, and then
subsequently accepting the deed by making improvements to the property
and retaining a torn piece of the deed support that he has good title?
2) Does the refusal of a life tenancy to accept the deed defeat the remainder
interest?
Point 1: There is no substantial evidence that conclusively shows that Gus later accepted
the conveyance. Possession of half a deed does not convince the court that he accepted it.
While a presemuption of delivery may arise where a deed is found in possession of a
grantee, the court does not believe that half a deed earlier rejected should have the benefit
of such presumption. Even making improvements, if no evidence is shown tha the
accepted the deed, is not conclusive. P here continued to pay taxes on the powernship as
well as incidents of ownership. This is not against the weight of evidence.
Point 2: The delivery of a deed is necessary to pass title, and in order to have delivery
there must be an acceptance. Whether there is a delivery depends on the facts of each
case and all relevant facts and circumstances should be considered in determining the
question. Had Gus accepted the deedd, D would receive their interest, as delivery of a
deed to a life tenant is a sufficient delivery for the benefit of the remainderman. His
actions justify the finding that he did not accept the deed. The grantor did not indicate
the acceptance by the remaindermen was thereafter available to them. The presumption
that they would have accepted does not apply, as it appears that acceptance was not
consider by the grantor to be a decision for the disposition and accepted the deed. The
deed was not accepted in a manner apparently contemplated by the grantor, and passed
no interest to D.