I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CT - 0 1 3 1 9 - S CT P HI L L I PM OR RO W
v. J OEL MOR R OW, A DMI NI S T RA TOR OF

T HE ES T AT ESOF GOC HER M OR RO W

, DE CE AS ED , A N D R EBA EL O I

S E S P A R K SMOR R O W, DE CE AS ED , AN D R ONA L D M OR RO W

ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 23/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. T AL M ADGE D. L I T T L E J OHN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: I TAW AM BA COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: CA SEY LAN GSTO N LO TT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : M I CH AEL D AV I D TA PS CO TT NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 17/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 9 - CT - 0 1 3 5 5 - S CT
P H I L L I PMOR R O W
v. J OEL MOR R OW, A DMI NI S T RA TOR OF

T HE ES T AT ESOF GOC HER M OR RO W

, DE CE AS ED , A N D R EBA EL O I

S E S P A R K SMOR R O W, DE CE AS ED , AN D R ONA L D M OR RO W
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 15/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. T AL M ADGE D. L I T T L E J OHN

### Th e pro pertyis more p articularlydescri b edas 1 60 acres, bein g th e So uthwest 1 

### Quarte r of

Sec ti on 5, Towns hip 8 Sout h, Range 8 Ea st ; 40 ac re s m oreor l es s, thesamebeing al l of theNorthwes t Quart er

of Se ction 8, Township 8 South, Range 8 Ea st , lying North of theOld Twenty Mi leCre ek; one a cr e in theNorthwes t Quarte r of theSouthe as t Quart er

of Sectio n 5, To wn ship 8 South, Ran ge 8 East; all located in Itawamb a County , M is si ssipp i. 2 COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: I TAW AM BA COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: CA SEY LAN GSTO N LO TT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : M I CH AEL D AV I D TA PS CO TT NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : D I SM I SSE D - 10/ 17/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he C hance r y C our t of I t aw amba C ounty f ound that cert ai n pr operty once ow ned by G ocherand R eba M orr ow ( the M orr ow s ) vest ed i n t hei rest at es att he t i m e of thei rdeaths and p a ss e d b y inte sta te s u c c e ss io n in e q u a l sh a re s to the ir th re e so n s, P h ill ip , R o n a ld , an d Jo e l. Phi l l i p appea l ed, ar gui ng thathe hel d a r emai nderi nt er es tand the pr operty ves t ed i n hi m at h is pa ren ts’ d ea th. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed
. O n rev iew , w e find that the c h an ce ry
courterr ed by notqui et i ng and conf i r m i ng t i t l e t o the pr operty i n Phi l l i p, and w e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s and the chanc ery court . W e r emand t hi s cas e t o the C hance ry C our tof It a w a m b a C o u n ty to e n te r a n o rd e r q u ie tin g a n d c o n fi rm in g title in P h illip M o rr o w .

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. T he M orr ow s ow ned appr oxi m at el y 200 hundr ed acr es of l and i n I t aw amba C ounty, M iss iss ip p i (th e p ro p e rty ). In th e late 1 9 8 0 s, P h ill ip m o v e d fro m N o rth C a ro lin a b a c k to 1R o n a ld m o v e d to T u p e lo fo r a b o u t a m o n th b e fo re d e c id in g h e d id n o t w a n t to h e lp 2 fa rm th e la n d
. 

### The 1996 de eds wer e both prepar ed and ac knowle dged by NellMay, an att orne y 3 

### wh o w as no t called as a w itness at trial an d is n owdeceased
. 3 I t aw amba C ounty t o hel p hi s fa therfa r m t he pr operty. Phi l l i p t es t i f i ed thathe moved back t o M i s s i s s i ppi af

t erhi s f atherext ended an of

f ert o a l l thr ee s ons t o gi ve them t he l and i f t hey
w oul d m ove home and hel p f arm . Phi l l i p f

ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe w as the onl y s on w ho t ook h is fa th e r u p o n th e o ffe r. A n u n d a ted letter fro m R o n a ld to th e M o rro w s w a s e n ter e d in to 2 evidence an d sup po rt s Ph i l l i p’s t est i m on y in r el evan tpartas f oll ow s: T her e have been t i m es w hen D ad has s poken of the [ s i c] how the i nher i t ance o f th e fa rm m igh t be p asted [si c] o n . W h en he ha s spo k en t o m e ab o u t i t, there w as a l w ays the i m pl i cat i on thatI w oul d ha ve t o move bac k, t o l i ve n ear you and w or k on the f

arm j us tas Phi l ha s done
. W hi l e l i vi ng ne aryou a nd havi ng a cl os e r el at i ons hi p w i th m y par ent s i s des i r abl e, I w as neverabl e t o s ee how I coul d do thi s and s t i l l m ake a decentl i vi ng . . . . D ad, I do notf eel that br other s s houl d have t o compet e f orthei ri nher i t ance , thi s dr i ves us apart , not cl os ert ogether
. I do l ove bot h of you and w i l l do everythi ng I ca n t o hel p you. B utthatl ove ca n not[ s i c] be boughtw i th t he pr i ce of the f arm , i nher i t ance or a n y th in g e ls e . ¶3
. In 1 9 9 3 , the M o rrow s d e e d e d th e p rop erty to P h il li p w ith o u t rese rva ti o n (D ee d 1 ). P h ill ip tes tified th a t, th re e y e a rs la ter , in 1 9 9 6 , h e an d h is p a re n ts d e c id e d tha t P h ill ip w o u ld d e e d th e p ro p e rty b a c k to h is p a re n ts a n d th a t th e y w o u ld in tu rn d e e d the p ro p e rty b a c k to Phi l l i p, r e s e r vi ng a l i f

e e s t a t e f orthe mse l ve s . Phi l l i p t e s t i f i e d tha tthi s d e c i s i on was m ade t o al l ow the M orr ow s t o fi l e f orhom es t ead e xempt i on on the pr operty, w hi ch w oul d r educe th e p ro p e rty tax e s, a n d e n su re th a t th e M o rro w s w o u ld c o n tin u e to h a v e a p la c e to liv e if
so m ethin g sh o u ld h ap p en to P h il li p . P h il li p an d h is pa ren ts hired a l o ca l att o rne y t o p rep are the d eeds. 3

### 4

¶ 4
. T h e th re e d e e d s w e re e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e b y stip u latio n o f th e p a rties
. T h e d isp u te i n thi s cas e ar i s es f

r om the dat es the 1996 deed s w ere exec ut ed, acknow l edged, and ul t i m at el y r ecor ded. T he l and r ecor ds show thatthe M orr ow s exec ut ed a de ed on M ar ch 23, 1996, conveyi ng the pr operty t o Phi l l i p w i th the r es ervat i on of a l i f e es t at e forthemsel ves ( D eed 2)
. T he ac know l edgm ent dat e re f l ect ed i n D eed 2, M ar ch 23, i ncl uded a typed

“ M a rc h ” an d a h a n d w ritten “2 3 .” H o w e v e r, D e e d 2 w a s n o t re c o rd e d u n til Ap ril23, 1996. ¶5. T he l and r ecor ds al s o r ef l ectthatPhi l l i p execut ed a w arr anty deed, conveyi ng the pr operty back t o hi s par ent s , on Ap ril22, 1996 ( D eed 3)
. D eed 3 r efl ect ed a typed
a c kn owl e dg mentd a t e o f “ M a r c h, ” whi c h ha d be e n c r os s e d ou ta nd r e pl a c ed w i t h a handw r i t t en “A pr i l , ” and a handw r i t t en “22. ” D eed 3 w as r ecor ded on Ap ril22, 1996, one day bef or e D eed 2 w as r ecorded
. B oth deeds w er e not ar i zed a nd cont ai ned the acknow l e dg ment s t ha tthe de e ds ha d b e e n “ s i gn e d, s e a l e d a nd de l i ve r e d” on the da t es ref l ect ed i n the ac know l edgment s . Phi l l i p al l eges thatthe not ary cl ear l y i nt ended t o cross outt he t yped “M ar ch” and handw r i t e “A pr i l ” on bot h deeds , butf ai l ed t o do s o on D eed 2. T hi s re s ul t ed i n D eed 2 appea r i ng t o have been exe cut ed a m onth bef or e D eed 3, al though i tw as r ecor ded a day aft erD eed 3. T he thr ee r ecor ded dee ds r ef l ectthe f

ol l ow i ng chr onol ogy: O c to b e r 6 , 1 9 9 3 T h e M o rro w s c o n v e y the p ro p e rty to P h ill ip in fe e sim p le

w ith o u t r ese rva ti o n (D ee d 1 ). M a rc h 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 T h e M o rro w s e x e c u te a d e e d c o n v e y in g th e p ro p e rty to

P h il li p , rese rvin g a li fe e stat e fo r th em selv es (D ee d 2 ). A pr i l 22 , 19 96 Phi l l i p exec ut es a dee d conveyi ng t he pr oper t y t o t he

M o rr o w s (D e e d 3 ).

### 5

A p ri l 2 2 , 1 9 9 6 D e e d 3 is re c o rd e d
. A p ri l 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 D e e d 2 is re c o rd e d
. ¶6. T he M orr ow s died i ntes t at e i n 1999 and 2000. Shor t l y ther eaf t er , Phi l l i p f

i l ed an
a c tio n a g a in st h is b ro th e rs, R o n a ld a n d J o e l, to q u iet a n d c o n firm title a n d h is s o le o w n e rsh ip
o f th e p ro p e rty . A ltern a tiv e ly , P h ill ip so u g h t to im p o se a n e q u itab le lie n o n th e p ro p e rty
s houl d he notbe gr ant ed s ol e ow ner s hi p. T he cha ncery cour tfound thatthe dat es r ef l ect ed i n t he ac know l edgment s w er e contr ol l i ng, m aki ng Phi l l i p’ s deed t o hi s par ent s the l as tdeed
e x e c u t e d
. T h e r e f

o r e , th e c h a n c e r y c o u r tf o u n d t h a tth e p r o p e r ty wa s v e s t e d i n th e M o r r o ws at th e ti m e o f the ird ea th a n d p asse d in eq u al pa rt s to a ll three b roth ers. T h e c h an ce ry c o u rt
a ls o fo u n d th a t P h illip w a s n o t e n title d to a n e q u ita b le lie n o n th e p ro p e rt y . ¶7 . P h il li p ap p ea led, arg u ing that D ee d s 2 an d 3 b ec am e effec ti v e o n the d ates they w ere
r ecor ded, notthe dat es r ef l ect ed i n the ac know l edgment s ; thatD eed 2 s houl d be r ef or m ed to sh o w an ex e c u tio n d a te o f A p ril 2 3 ins tea d o f M a rc h 2 3 ; th a t t itl e to th e p ro p e rty sh o u ld b e v e ste d in h im p u rsu a n t t o th e d o c trin e o f a fte r-a c q u ire d p ro p e rty (D A A P ); a n d th a t, al t ernat i vel y, he i s e nt i t l ed t o a n e qui t abl e l i en on the pr operty. W e as s i gned the ca s e t o t he C our tof A ppeal s , w hi ch f

ound t hatthe cha ncery courtdi d noterrbeca us e D eeds 2 and 3 b ec am e e ffecti v e o n the d ates reflec ted in the a ck n o w ledg m en ts, n o t th e d a te the y w ere
re c o rd e d ; th a t P h ill ip h a d fa iled to p ro p e rly p lea d th e D A A P a n d , th e re fo re , c o u ld n o t re ly on the doctr i ne; thatt he D A A P w oul d fa i l on the m er i t s i f i tw as appl i ed t o the ca s e; and that P h illip w a s n o t e n title d to a n e q u ita b le lie n . ¶8. W e gr ant ed cert i or ar i
. W e f i nd t hatD eeds 2 and 3 w er e pr es um pt i vel y del i ver ed, and ther ef or e bec ame ef

f ect i ve t o t r ans f

ert i t l e, on the dat es they w er e r ecor ded, r atherthan on

### Carl is le v. All en , 40 So . 3d12 52 , 12 56 (Miss. 2 01 0) (citatio ns o mitted). 4

### Id. (citation s omitted ). 5 

### 6 the dat es r ef

l ect ed i n the ac know l edgment s . Suf f i ci entevi dence w as notpr es ent ed t o r ebut thatpre s um pt i on. T her ef or e, w e hol d thatt i t l e t o the pr operty pas s ed t o the M orr ow s on A pr i l 22, 1993, thatt i t l e t o t he pr operty pass ed t o P hi l l i p, w i th re s ervat i on of a l i f e es t at e, on A p ril 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 , a n d tha t t itl e v e ste d in P h ill ip M o rro w at th e tim e o f R e b a M o rro w ’s d e a th i n 2 00 0. A s this i ssue i s di sposi t i ve, w e do no tadd res s Ph i l l i p’s r em ai ning cl ai m s. DI S CUS S I ON ¶9. A chanc el l or ’ s f

i ndi ngs ar e s ubj ect t o an abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d of r evi ew , and
w e w i l l notdi s turb the “f actual f i ndi ngs of a chanc el l orw hen s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e u n les s th e C o u rt c a n sa y w ith re a so n a b le c e rta in ty th a t th e c h a n c e llo r a b u se d h is d is c re tio n , w a s m a n if

e s tly w ro n g , c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s o r a p p lie d a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd .” 4 “H ow ever , ques t i ons of l aw w i l l be r evi ew ed de novo .” 5 ¶ 1 0
. T h e b a s i c f

a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e n o td i s p u t e d – th e p a r t i e s a g r e e th a tth e M o rr o ws conveye d t he pr operty t o Phi l l i p w i thoutr es ervat i on i n 1993; thatthe M orr ow s r econve yed the pr operty t o Phi l l i p, r es ervi ng a l i f e es t at e for t hem sel ves vi a D eed 2, w hi ch w as acknow l edged on M ar ch 23, 1996, and r ecor ded on A pr i l 23, 1996; and thatPhi l l i p conveye d the pr operty back t o the M orr ow s vi a D eed 3, w hi ch w as acknow l edged on A pr i l 22, 1996, and al so recorded on A pr i l 22. T he cha ncel l orappl i ed M i s s i s s i ppi l aw t o the undi s put ed fac ts i n rea ch ing h is de cisi o n . T h ere fore , w e re v iew the c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s ord er de novo
. ¶11. Phi l l i p ar gues that the chance ry cour t err ed by r el yi ng on M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 89- 5- 13 beca us e the s t atut e i s i nappl i cabl e t o thi s cas e. Sect i on 89- 5- 13 is a st atut e w hi ch

### Green lee v. Mitch ell, 607 So. 2d 97, 106 ( Mis s. 1992) (cit ations omi tt ed) 6 

### (interp reting an earlier v ersiono f th e st atute). See al so Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 89- 5-13 ( Rev. 2011). In re Es tat

e of Hardy , 91 0 S o. 2 d 1 05 2, 1 05 4 (M iss. 20 05 ). 7 

### 7 op erat es ( 1) t o cu re a defect i ve ack no w l edg m ent i n a d eed recorded forseven o r m ore years; and ( 2) t o r ecogni ze a deed r ecor ded f ort en orm or e yea r s w i thoutan acknow l edgmentas pr oper l y acknow l edg ed. Sect i on 89- 5- 13 i s a cur at i ve s t atut e f ordocument s cont ai ni ng a d e fe c tiv e a c k n o w le d g m e n t a n d “ o th e rw is e h a s n o b e a ri n g o n a d e e d ’s v a lid ity .” 6 ¶1 2. A l t hough t he chanc er y cour tre co gn i z e d i n i t s be nc h o pi ni on tha tno pa r t y had q u e stio n e d th e a u th e n ticity o f th e a c k n o w led g m e n ts in th e d e e d s, th e c o u rt fo u n d th a t, beca us e both D eed 2 a nd 3 had bee n rec or ded f orm or e than s even ye ar s , Sect i on 89- 5- 13 ap p li ed to v ali d ate the ac k n o w ledg m en ts, cre ati n g a p resu m p ti o n tha t th e d e ed s w ere
exec ut ed as r ef

l ect ed on thei rf

ace s . T he chanc ery c our tf ur therf ound thatno evi dence had been pr es ent ed t o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on thatthe ac know l edgment s w er e val i d; ther ef or e, t he chanc ery courthel d t hatthe dee ds beca m e ef f ect i ve on the dat es they w ere si gn ed and
ac k n o w ledg ed as re fl ec ted in the d ee d s. A lth o u g h the c h an ce ll o r d id n o t ad d ress the d eli v ery
o f th e d e e d s a p a rt fro m th e ir e x e c u tio n , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt d id noterri n “r el at i ng back” t he del i ver y dates o f D eeds 2 and 3 t o the dat es r ef l ect ed i n t he acknow l edgmentby t he not ary. ¶ 1 3
. M iss iss ip p i law is cle a r – a d e e d is no t effe c tiv e to tran sfe r t itl e u n les s an d u n til it i s del i ver ed t o t he gr ant ee. D el i very has been de f i ned as “a t r ans f

erof [ a dee d] f

r om the 7 gr ant ort o the gr ant ee orhi s agentort o s om e thi r d per s on f orthe gr ant ee’ s us e, i n s uch
m anneras t o depr i ve the gr ant orof the r i ghtt o r eca l l i tathi s opt i on, and w i th in ten t to

### Id. at 10 54 -55 (citationomitted ) (emph asis add ed). 8

### Id. at 10 55 (citationomitted ). 9 

### Id. (citationomitted ). 10 

### Gru bb s v. Everett, 11 1 S o. 2 d 9 23 , 92 3-2 4 (M iss. 19 59 ). 11 

### Mart in v . Adams , 62 So . 2d32 8, 2 77 -78 (Miss. 1 95 3). 12 

### Thompson v

. Shell Wes tern E & P I

nc. , 607 So. 2d 37, 40 ( Mis s. 1992). 13 

### In re Es tat

e of Hardy , 9 10 So . 2d10 52 ; Est ate of Dykesv. Est

ate of Wi ll iams , 864 14 

### So. 2d 926 ( Mis s. 2003). 8 c o n v e y tit le
. ” “The i nt entt o del i vera deed mustbe mut ual w i th the i nt entt o acc eptthe dee d

8 in o rd e r fo r th e d e liv e ry a n d a c c e p tan c e to b e c o m p lete .” A n d b e fo re d e liv e ry , a d e e d is 9
w ith o u t fo rc e o r e ffe c t an d is m e re ly a “ sc ro ll u n d e r c o n tro l o f th e g ra n to r w h o is fre e to
w ith d ra w it, d e stro y it, o r c o m p lete its e x e c u tio n b y d e liv e ry .” In d e e d , this C o u rt h a s h e ld 10 thata dee d w hi ch w as undi s put edl y “s i gned and a cknow l edged, ” w i th an ac know l edgment
r eci t i ng “thatt he sa m e w as ‘s i gned, sea l ed and del i ver ed, ’ ” butw as i n f actneverdel i ver ed, “neve rbeca m e ef

fect i ve. ” L i kew i s e, w e have hel d thata dee d thatw as exec ut ed and

11
r ecor ded, butw hi ch the gr ant ee de cl i ned t o acc eptupon att empt ed del i very, w as not del i ver ed and w as voi d. Ther ef or e, even i f

a dee d i s pr oper l y acknow l edged, the dee d does 12 notbecome ef

f ect i ve t o t r ans f

ert i t l e unt i l del i very and ac cept ance ar e compl et ed. ¶ 1 4
. T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt fo u n d th a t S e c tio n 8 9 -5 -1 3 a c ted “ to p u t a se a l u p o n th e v a lid ity of thos e ac know l edgment s and no one can c om plai n of them , notthata nybody ha s . . . ” W e agr ee w i th the cha ncel l orthata “ pr oper l y a cknow l edged de ed i s pr es um pt i vel y authent i c .

. . , ” butthatpr es um pt i on i s notconcl us i ve and does notr es ul ti n a f i ndi ng that“ no one ca n 13
co m p lai n o f. ” Ind ee d , i t is a p resu m p ti o n th at can be rebu tt ed
. T h e q u esti o n at i ssu e h ere 14

### In re Es tat e of Hardy , 91 0 S o. 2 d at 1 05 4 (citatio n o mitted). 15 

### 9 i s notthe val i di ty of

the dee d - thati s , no one ques t i ons w hetherD eed 2 be ar s the true
s i gnatur es of

the M orr ow s . R ather , the onl y ques t i on pr es ent ed i s w hen D eed 2 w as ef f ect i ve t o tr ans f ert i t l e. W e f

i nd thatthe chanc ery c our te rr ed i n r el yi ng on Sect i on 89- 5- 13 t o f i nd thatD eeds 2 and 3 be came e f f ect i ve on the dat es r ef

l ect ed i n the ac know l edgment s , w i thout addr es s i ng Phi l l i p’ s uncontr adi ct ed t es t i m ony of the i nt entof

the part i es or cons i der i ng w hen the dee ds w er e del i ver ed and a cce pt ed. ¶ 1 5 . It is w e ll- s e ttle d th a t “ th e re c o rd in g o f a d e e d ra is e s a p re s u m p tio n o f its d e liv e ry .” 15 J oel and R onal d ar gue thatthe r ecor di ng of the dee ds onl y rai ses a pr es um pt i on thatt he deeds w er e del i ver ed ats om e poi nt , notthatthe dee ds w er e del i ver ed on t he dat es t hatthey
w er e r ecor ded, and they ur ge us t o f i nd thatthe dat es the deeds w er e del i ver ed ar e the dat es th a t th e y w e re a c k n o w le d g e d
. ¶ 1 6
. P h ill ip tes tified th a t h e d id n o t k n o w w h ich d e e d w a s e x e c u ted first. H o w e v e r, P h ill ip di d t es t i f y thati tw as hi s i nt entt o de ed the pr operty t o hi s pa r ent s i n or derf orthem t o r es erve a l i f e es t at e i n the pr operty forthem sel ves a nd r econve y i tt o hi m . Phi l l i p f ur thert es t i f

i ed th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e d e e d e d th e p ro p e rty b a c k to h is p a re n ts if th e y w e re n o t g o in g to
reconv ey i tt o hi m . Phi l l i p’ s t es t i m ony r ebut s any pr es um pt i on thatD eed 2 w as del i ver ed
o r a c c e p te d b y h im p ri o r t o th e re c o rd in g o f D e e d 3
. ¶17. I n thi s cas e, w e f i nd a presum pti on thatD eed 3 be came ef f ect i ve on A pr i l 22 and D eed 2 be came ef

f ect i ve on A pr i l 23, the dat es they w er e r ecor ded. N o evi dence w as of f er ed t o r ebutt hes e pr es um pt i ons ot hert han the ac know l edgment s r ef l ect ed i n the dee ds , w hi ch, in the fac e o f ev ide n ce to the co n tr ary , d o es n o t est ab li sh the d ates tha t th e d ee d s w ere

### Odom v. Forbe s , 50 0 S o. 2 d 9 97 , 10 01 (Miss. 1 98 7). 16 

### 10 del i ver ed and ac cept ed. T her ef or e, w e f i nd t hatD eed 3 be came ef f ect i ve the day be f

or e D eed 2, the d at es t he deeds w er e r ecor ded, and thatthe M orr ow s s ucce s s f ul l y conveye d t he pr operty t o Phi l l i p on A pr i l 23, 1996, r es ervi ng a l i f e es t at e unt o themsel ves, a day af t er P h ill ip c o n v e y e d the p ro p e rty to th e M o rro w s. A s s u c h , ti tle to th e p ro p e rty v e ste d in P h ill ip
w i thoutr es tr i ct i on atthe t i m e of R eba M orr ow ’ s death. A s f or m erC hi ef

J us t i ce H aw ki ns
as tut el y obs erved more than tw enty- f i ve yea r s ago: C ases i nv olvi ng t he del i very of deeds , and mi s t ake, i nvol ve a myr i ad of d iffere n t f

ac tual situ ati o n s, as d iverse as th e m ind o f m an , an d w e a re cons tr ai ned t o concl ude thi s opi ni on w i th the cl i che thateac h cas e mustbe evaluat ed o n it s peculi ar f act s. 16 CO NC L US I ON ¶18. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above, the j udgm ent s of the C hance ry Courtof

I t aw amba C o u n ty an d the C o u rtof A p p ea ls are reve rsed
. W e rem an d this case to the ch an ce ry c o u rt
w i th instruct i on s t o enteran orderquiet i ng and con fi rm i ng t i t l e i n P hil l i p M orr ow . B ecause
w e f i nd thatt i t l e s houl d be qui et ed and conf i r m ed i n Phi l l i p M orr ow , w e di s m i s s the appe al f r om t he j udgm entdenyi ng P hi l l i p M orr ow ’ s cl ai m foran equi t abl e l i en on t he pr oper ty as
m o o t. ¶19. AS T O 20 0 9 - CT- 0 1 3 1 9 - S CT: REVER SED A ND RE M AN DE D. AS TO 2 0 0 9 - CT0 1 3 5 5 - S CT : DI S M I S S ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.