equal shares

In May 1999, Fred Paramour executed four deeds, each conveying a life estate in his land to him and his wife and a remainder interest in one-fourth of his land to each of his four children: Alley, Endwell, Bernice, and Iris. Although Fred executed and acknowledged the four deeds as part of his plan to distribute his estate at his death, he did not deliver them to his children at this time. Instead, he placed the deeds with his will in a safe deposit box and instructed the children to pick up their deeds at his death. Fred later conveyed Alley’s deed to Alley, thereby vesting Alley’s interest in that parcel, but Endwell, Bernice, and Iris’s deeds were never handed over to them during Fred’s lifetime. Fred, however, acted as if the land was beyond his control, and on one occasion told a prospective buyer that the land had already been deeded away. When Fred died in November 2010, Alley brought this action, claiming that the deeds to Endwell, Bernice, and Iris were ineffective because they had never been handed over during Fred’s lifetime. Accordingly, Alley argued the remaining land should pass in equal shares to each of the four children under the residuary clause of Fred’s will. Who will prevail? Why?