Pratt v. Carns

• Decision Date: 10 July 1920
• Citation: 85 So. 681,80 Fla. 243
• Parties: PRATT et al. v. CARNS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

85 So. 681

80 Fla. 243

PRATT et al. v. CARNS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 10, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.

Suit by Jesse V. Carns and others against Mrs. Annie May Pratt and husband. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the eleventh paragraph of the bill and overruling it as to the remainder both parties appeal. Reversed as to the eleventh paragraph of the bill, and affirmed as to the remainder.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A party seeking to have a deed declared to be void and delivered up to be canceled, on the ground of undue influence exerted over the mind of the grantor, must plead the facts constituting such undue influence; the rule of pleading in such cases being the same as in cases of fraud.

The term 'undue influence' is not regarded as being susceptible of precise definition, but in order to render a deed void the undue influence relied upon must be of such a character as to overcome the will, deprive the grantor of free agency, and substitute the will of another for that of the grantor.

Where a bill contains allegations that deeds of conveyance were made without consideration, that the grantor and grantee were parent and child, and that undue influence was exerted over the grantor in the execution of the deeds, such allegations of ultimate facts or conclusions not being negatived by other specific facts alleged, a demurrer thereto may be properly overruled, since on the admission of the demurrer it does not appear as a matter of law that undue influence was not used and under such allegations a case entitling the complainant to relief may be made by appropriate and sufficient proof showing that in effect the grantee's will was substituted for that of the grator in the execution of the deeds.

Delivery of a deed is essential to the passing of the title to the property intended to be conveyed to the grantee.

The placing of a deed in the hands of a third person for future delivery to the grantee may constitute a delivery, but to accomplish this purpose it must be made to appear that in placing the deed in the hands of such third person the grantor intended to, and in fact did, relinquish and surrender all dominion and control over such deed.

Though the allegations of a bill of complaint be abstract and general and largely in the nature of asserted conclusions yet, if under the allegations a case entitling the complainant to relief as prayed can be made by appropriate and sufficient evidence, a general demurrer to the bill of complaint should be overruled.

COUNSEL Fred B. Noble and J. A. Yates, both of Jacksonville, for appellants.

John L. Doggett and Henry C. Clark, both of Jacksonville, for appellees.

OPINION

WEST J.

By this suit appellees seek to have certain deeds declared to be void and of no effect and delivered up to be canceled.

The grounds of the alleged invalidity of such deeds are the undue influence of the grantee charged to have been exerted over the mind of the grantor at the time of their execution and as to one of the deeds it is alleged that no delivery thereof was ever made to the grantee. The grantee is the daughter of the grantor, and after his death this suit was brought by the complainants, who are sons and heirs of the grantor, against the grantee, her husband, and two other persons who are alleged to be tenants occupying and claiming some interest in the two pieces of property covered by such deeds respectively.

There was a general demurrer to the bill and special demurrers were interposed to the fifth and seventh, ninth and tenth and eleventh paragraphs. There was an order sustaining the demurrer as to the eleventh paragraph and overruling it as to the remainder of the bill. Both complainants and defendants entered an appeal from such order to this court. The grounds of the demurrer to the fifth and seventh paragraphs are, in substance: (1) That no facts are shown which exhibited any undue influence by the grantee over the mind of the grantor; (2) that it does not appear that said grantor was deprived of his free agency; (3) nor that the execution of the deeds described therein was against his wish or desire; (4) nor that the will of the said grantee was substituted for the will of the grantor. The grounds of the demurrer to the ninth and tenth paragraphs are the same as the grounds of the demurrer to the fifth and seventh paragraphs. The grounds of the demurrer to the eleventh paragraph are, in substance: (1) That it appears that the deeds described therein were delivered to a third person without any reservation on the part of the said grantor to retain control of such deeds; (2) that it does not appear how the said deeds were subject to the direction and control of the said grantor; (3) that it does appear that a good and valid delivery of the said deeds was made to the grantee.

There is a prayer that the deeds described be declared to be void and of no effect and delivered up to be canceled, for an injunction against any incumbrance or sale of the property, a receiver to take charge of such property, an accounting, and for general relief.

The allegations of undue influence are contained in the fifth and seventh and ninth and tenth paragraphs of the bill. These paragraphs are as follows:

'5. That said John N. Carns, Sr., was naturally a kind, comforting, thoughtful, and affectionate husband and father; that he continued to be such kind, comforting, thoughtful, and affectionate husband and father up to a period some eight years prior to his death, when the defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt, who was then unmarried and known as Annie May Carns, succeeded in instilling counter influences in the life and mind of her said father by falsely persuading her father that his wife, the mother of the said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt and of your orators, was of unsound mind and was unreasonable and overexacting in asking for care, comfort, and support, and that your orators, the brothers of said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt, were not worthy of the confidences of, or even of association with, or of communication to or from, their said father, and your orators further show unto your honor that said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt continuously endeavored, by such false persuasions and representations aforesaid, to influence her said father and the father of your orators against his wife and sons, and that said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt continuously endeavored to assume control of her said father and of his affairs, with the purpose and intention of securing for herself so much of the property belonging to her said mother and her said father as possible; that by the means and methods aforesaid said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt succeeded in turning her father's mind against his wife and sons, and succeeded in gaining great and undue influence over her said father, and by such false persuasions and representations as aforesaid totally changed her said father from a kind, comforting, thoughtful, and affectionate husband and father to a disagreeable, morose, miserly, selfish husband, and succeeded in destroying all confidence, association, and communication of her father in and with your orators; that, having gained such undue influence over her said father as aforesaid, and having turned her said father against his wife and against your orators, said defendant Mrs. Annie May Pratt further exerted her said undue influence over her father by persuading him to execute to herself the said paper writing or

...