Case Name: Eugene N. JAMES, Appellant, v. Marianne M. MABIE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr.; and Baron P. Smith, d/b/a Smith's Family Carpets, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-05-13
Citations: 819 So. 2d 795
Docket Number: No. 1D01-2306
Parties: Eugene N. JAMES, Appellant, v. Marianne M. MABIE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr.; and Baron P. Smith, d/b/a Smith’s Family Carpets, Appellees.
Judges: ALLEN, J., CONCURS.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 819
Pages: 795–801

Head Matter:
Eugene N. JAMES, Appellant, v. Marianne M. MABIE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr.; and Baron P. Smith, d/b/a Smith’s Family Carpets, Appellees.
No. 1D01-2306.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 13, 2002.
Rehearing Denied June 26, 2002.
James M. Wilson of Wilson, Harrell, Smith, Boles & Farrington, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
J. Arby Van Slyke of J. Arby Van Slyke, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PADOVANO, J.
This is an appeal from a final declaratory judgment determining the right of ownership of real property. The trial court found that the grantor of an unrecorded deed did not intend to deliver the deed to the grantee. Based on this finding, the court held that the deed was ineffective to convey title and rendered judgment in favor of the grantor's estate. We conclude that the judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, we affirm.
The property in controversy is a parcel of land with a warehouse situated on Pine Forest Road in Escambia County. Lef-ferts L. Mabie, Jr., purchased the property in 1991, and at that time he executed a note and mortgage in favor of the Peoples First Bank. On March 13, 1992, Mabie signed a warranty deed purporting to convey the property to Work Enterprises (75%) and to Eugene N. James (25%). Work and James did not assume the Peoples First mortgage. Nor did they record the deed.
On September 21, 1993, Work Enterprises leased the property to Baron Smith, who was to use the warehouse as the site of his carpet business. The lease was signed on behalf of Work Enterprises by its agent, Joe Urquhart. Smith was ap parently unaware of the fact that the lessor was not the record owner of the property at the time of the lease. While Smith was paying rent to Work Enterprises, Ma-bie executed a second mortgage on the property. Mabie and his wife, Marianne, borrowed $150,828.25, from Allen R. Levin on August 5, 1993, and they gave Levin a mortgage on the property as security for the payment of the loan.
A dispute arose between Smith and Urquhart concerning the amount of the rent and Smith eventually learned that Urquhart's company was not the record owner of the property. Smith called a county employee and discovered that the property was titled in Mabie's name. Subsequently, on October 5, 1994, Mabie wrote Smith a letter stating that he had taken over ownership of the warehouse. In his letter to Smith, Mabie wrote that he "would very much appreciate your forwarding all future lease payments directly to me." Mabie sent a copy of the letter to Urquhart who voiced no objection. Smith then began to make his rent payments to Mabie.
Smith and Mabie entered into a new agreement on December 21, 1994, in place of the lease previously executed by Work Enterprises. Mabie leased the Pine Forest Road Property to Smith for a term of five years beginning January 1, 1995, and gave Smith an option to purchase the property for $240,000 during the first twenty-four months of the lease. Mabie died in March 1996 and his wife was appointed as the personal representative of the estate. Smith did not exercise his option to purchase the property from Ma-bie or his estate at any time during the term of the option.
Joe Urquhart died later in 1996. The deed from Mabie to Work and James was then discovered in Urquhart's office at Work Enterprises. The president of the company said that she found the deed "thrown in" a file cabinet. On April 7, 1997, Work executed a quit claim deed conveying any interest it had in the Pine Forest Road property to Eugene James. Work owned no assets and was indebted to James. At this point, a dispute over the ownership of the property arose between Eugene James as the successor to the original deed and the estate of Lefferts Mabie.
James conceded that he gave no consideration in exchange for the March 13,1992 deed and that he did not notify Mrs. Mabie or the estate of his interest in the property until November 1996, after the deaths of Mabie and Urquhart. He said that he did not make a claim against the Mabie estate because he did not think he was in a position to do so, given that he had only a 25 % interest in the property, and the 75 % owner was not going to make a claim.
Joe Urquhart gave James a copy of the deed in 1992, but told him that it could not be recorded. James testified that he had several conversations with Urquhart about recording the deed, but Urquhart always told him "it's not time yet." In the spring of 1996, James again told Urquhart that the deed should be recorded. Urquhart remained unwilling to record the deed, but did not explain why.
Joe Elliott, a realtor, was present on March 13, 1992, when the deed was signed and he heard the conversation between Mabie and Urquhart. Elliott testified that Urquhart asked Mabie to give Work Enterprises a deed to the property. Urquhart told Mabie that he had a deal with a man in Texas regarding some oil wells and he was expecting to come into a small fortune within months after the deed was signed. According to Elliott, Urquhart was to hold the deed until Mabie's liabilities on the mortgage were satisfied.
Urquhart was supposed to be making the payments on Mabie's mortgage to Peoples First, but Elliott testified that not all of the payments were going to the bank as Urquhart had promised. Elliott testified that Mabie told him there were problems with the money getting to the bank. Ma-bie wanted Elliott to get Urquhart to make the payments. Urquhart did not have the money, so Mabie and Elliott discussed putting the property back on the market. These discussions took place before Mabie executed the new lease with Baron Smith.
Mr. Mabie's son, Lefferts L. Mabie, III, testified that he was in contact with Mr. Urquhart on a weekly basis after his father's death, and that Mr. Urquhart never claimed he was the owner the Pine Forest Road property. Mabie's son explained that Urquhart was indebted to the estate and that he had been calling Urquhart to collect the money he owed. Likewise, Joe Elliott testified that Urquhart never asserted that he was the owner of the property.
The trial judge found that Mabie had no intent to convey the title to the property and therefore concluded that the Pine Forest Road property was an asset of the Mabie estate. This decision was'based in part on Joe Elliott's testimony, which .the trial judge found to be convincing and unimpeached. In this regard, the final judgment states that "[t]he court accepts Mr. Elhott's testimony that Mr. Urquhart said he wanted to have the deed for the purpose of having it to show the plaintiff." The trial judge also reasoned that Mabie would not have entered into a lease with Smith if he believed that he had conveyed the property to Work Enterprises and James, and that Urquhart, who was fully aware of the new lease, would have objected had he believed that Work Enterprises was the true owner. . This, the. trial judge said, was "the strongest proof' that Mabie did not intend to convey the property. Finally, the trial judge found that the fact that Urquhart never recorded the deed was evidence of the parties' understanding that the deed was not intended to convey title to the property.
We need only determine whether the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the judgment. Whether a deed has been delivered and is therefore effective to transfer ownership of real property to the grantee depends on the intent of the grantor. Smith v. Owens, 91 Fla. 995, 108 So. 891, 893 (1926); Whittimore v. Cruce, 479 So.2d 761, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). A decision regarding the intent of the grantor of a deed is one of fact, Parramore v. Parramore, 371 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and issues of fact are reviewable on appeal by the competent substantial evidence test. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). It follows that we must affirm the decision of the trial court in this case if it is supported by competent substantial evidence.
The trial judge found that Mabie did not intend to deliver the deed merely by signing it and handing it over to Urquhart. This finding is supported in part by the undisputed fact that the deed was never recorded. Urquhart refrained from recording the deed, even though he was repeatedly urged by his own business associates to record it. The logical inference from this fact is that Urquhart knew he was not the true owner of the property.
This inference is also supported by circumstantial evidence in the record. For example, Urquhart made no objection when Mabie took over the lease to Smith. Mabie's execution of the new lease shows that he considered himself to be the owner of the property, despite the March 13, 1992 deed, and Urquhart's failure to object shows that he understood that he was not the owner. To accept the argument that the deed was intended to transfer ownership of the property, the trial court would have to conclude that Mabie leased real property he did not own, and that the true owner knowingly allowed him to do that.
In addition to the circumstantial evidence, the trial court had direct evidence that Joe Urquhart was merely holding the deed. The judge accepted Elliott's testimony that Urquhart was merely holding the deed to show James that he owned real property and that all parties understood that he was not the true owner.
Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr. and Joe Urquhart are both deceased and the record does not fully explain why they chose to enter into such an unusual real estate transaction. However, we need not approve of their motivations. The trial judge determined that Mabie did not intend to deliver the deed and there is ample evidence in the record to support that decision.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, J., CONCURS.
BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.