Anderson v. Caldwell
| Decision Date | 06 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | 29287. |
| Citation | 19 S.E.2d 202,66 Ga.App. 703 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. CALDWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
A widow and the heirs at law of a decedent may agree that widow shall receive a stipulated portion of the estate in lieu of her rights as a widow, including the provision for a year's support, but the agreement must not be procured from widow ignorant of her rights and the condition of the estate, or by fraud or duress, otherwise agreement could be set aside.
In proceeding by widow for a year's allowance wherein administrator set up agreement made by widow and heirs at law by which widow was to receive, in lieu of all rights or claims to any dower or year's support, a life interest in certain land on payment of $800 from widow's share in deceased husband's estate, and widow attacked agreement on ground of fraud and concealment as to the condition of the estate and for want of consideration, verdict for administrator was sustained by the evidence.
Where a caveat is filed by the administrator to an application of the widow for a year's support, the burden of proof is on the widow; but, where the contest is between the widow and an adverse claimant of the property, the rule is otherwise.
1. A widow and the heirs at law of a decedent may enter into an agreement, voluntary and binding, whereby she is to take and receive a stipulated portion of the estate in lieu of any of her rights as a widow, including the provision for a year's support. The agreement must not be induced by ignorance of her rights and of the condition of the estate amounting to accident or mistake, and must not be procured by fraud or duress, in which events it could be set aside.
2. Under the evidence here, the jury was authorized to find that the contract contained a legal consideration and was not induced by ignorance of the widow's rights and of the condition of the estate, and that it was not procured by fraud or duress, and that therefore the widow was thereby barred from subsequently claiming a year's support.
3. Where a caveat is filed by the administrator of the estate to an application of the widow for a year's support and the contest is thus between the administrator and the widow, the burden of proof is on the widow. Where the contest is between the widow and an adverse claimant of the property the rule is otherwise.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict and no error of law appears.
In proceeding by widow for a year's allowance wherein administrator set up agreement made by widow and heirs at law by which widow was to receive, in lieu of all rights or claims to any dower or year's support, a life interest in certain land on payment of $800 from widow's share in deceased husband's estate, and widow attacked agreement on ground of fraud and concealment as to the condition of the estate and for want of consideration, verdict for administrator was sustained by the evidence.
Mrs Lula Waley Anderson, widow of John C. Anderson, entered into an agreement with the heirs of her husband whereby she was to receive, in lieu of "all rights or claims to any dower or year's support" from her husband's estate, a life interest in 100 acres of land on which the home place was located, an adjacent strip of land on which was located a barn, a corn crib, and a granary, on her paying $800, which was paid from her share in her husband's estate. This property (except the strip of land on which the barn, the corn crib and the granary were located) was the same as that described in a deed from the deceased to Mrs. Anderson during his life, but not to become effective until his death, and in consideration of Mrs. Anderson deducting $800, as dower, from her interest in his estate, and said deed to her during his life was ratified by the parties to this agreement. The agreement further provided that Mrs. Anderson was to receive $200 in cash, certain described personal effects of her husband household furniture, etc., enumerating it, two cows, certain feed, 1,500 feet of lumber, and the chickens then in her possession. After these items had been deducted from the estate, it was agreed that Mr. Lester Caldwell, the administrator of the estate, was to sell the residue of the estate, both real and personal property, and the cash was to be divided per capita among the heirs at law of Mrs Anderson, which made nine in all to share in the residue of the estate. It appears from the evidence that in addition to receiving the equivalent of $800 out of the residue of the estate Mrs. Anderson received $788 as her per capita share. This contract was executed under the supervision of Mr. Caldwell, the administrator, and Mr. McCutchen, the lawyer for the estate, and was filed with the ordinary of Whitfield County. Subsequently, almost a year after the contract was signed, Mrs. Anderson filed her application for a year's support. To the return of the appraisers setting aside $1,500 and other property as a year's support, the administrator filed a caveat. By consent of the parties the cause was appealed to the superior court. By caveat Caldwell contended that Mrs. Anderson was barred from seeking a year's support because of the agreement stated above, whereby she had waived a year's support and had agreed on a distribution of the estate. Mrs. Anderson admitted the execution of the agreement, but attacked it on the ground of fraud and concealment as to the condition of the estate, and because it was without consideration.
The record disclosed that Mrs. Anderson filed an "equitable answer and petition to the caveat" with the superior court, setting out certain facts among which was that approximately three years before the death of her husband he had executed to her a deed in fee simple to the real property described in her agreement with the heirs. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial