McCoy v. Love
Facts
Mary V. Nowling Elliott, an elderly woman who could neither read nor write, orally agreed to sell Russell two mineral acres for $3,300, but Russell prepared a deed conveying a one-fifth interest in all minerals under a seventy-five acre tract. Elliott signed and delivered the deed after her daughter looked at it but did not understand it. Russell later said he had made a mistake, offered to pay more for the larger interest, and then purported to reconvey part of the interest, but before that reconveyance he had already conveyed a substantial portion to McClelland, whose successors were the respondents. After a later title search revealed those transactions, Elliott sued to cancel the deed, and the trial court held the deed void for fraud and lack of lawful delivery.
Issue
When a grantor knowingly signs and delivers a deed, but the grantee has fraudulently inserted terms conveying more than the grantor intended, is the deed void for lack of delivery or merely voidable in equity? Relatedly, may later purchasers claim bona fide purchaser protection if the deed conveyed legal title?
Rule
Delivery is essential to a valid deed, and without delivery nothing passes. But where all essential legal requisites of a deed, including execution and delivery, are present, the deed conveys legal title; fraud in the inducement makes such a deed voidable in equity, not void. The rule that a deed procured by fraud is void is limited to cases in which the fraud in execution amounts to a complete failure of delivery, such as wrongful acquisition of an escrowed undelivered deed.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Under the governing rule, what is the strongest characterization of the deed?