Anderson v. Lindgren, 15230.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 15230. |
| Citation | 113 Colo. 401,157 P.2d 687 |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. LINDGREN. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1945.
Error to District Court, Phillips County; Arlington Taylor, Judge.
Action in equity by Amanda B. Anderson and others against Dewey C Lindgren to cancel and annul a deed and lease from Hadda Lindgren to defendant, after whose death Laura C. Lindgren as administratrix of deceased's estate, was substituted as party defendant. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Redmond & Drefke, of Sterling, for plaintiffs in error.
Sherman E. Walrod, of Holyoke, and Raymond M. Sandhouse, of Sterling for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error will hereinafter be called plaintiffs and defendant in error will be referred to as defendant.
Plaintiffs as heirs at law of Hadda Lindgren brought this action in equity for a decree cancelling and annulling a certain deed and lease from Hadda Lindgren to Dewey C. Lindgren, their brother, executed and recorded on September 22, 1938.
Hadda Lindgren died on November 3, 1939, at the age of seventy-five years.
Dewey C. Lindgren died while the action was pending, and defendant as administratrix of his estate was substituted.
The trial consumed three days; more than thirty witnesses were sworn and testified; briefs were filed with the trial court. The trial court entered its findings and decree, resulting in a judgment of dismissal. To review the judgment plaintiffs sue out this writ of error.
There are nine specifications of points upon which plaintiffs rely for a reversal, and these may be summarized as follows: 1. A fiduciary relation existed between Hadda Lindgren and her son, and the burden was, therefore, upon him to establish that the utmost good faith was exercised in connection with the deed and lease; 2. The deed and lease were executed as a result of undue influence; 3. Hadda Lindgren lacked sufficient mental capacity to execute the deed and lease; 4. There was no valid consideration.
In the complaint plaintiffs alleged that their aged mother had resided in the home of Dewey C. Lindgren, as a member of his family, for many years prior to September 22, 1938, and a confidential relation existed between Dewey C. Lindgren and his mother; that the mother had become infirm in mind and her mental faculties impaired so that she was susceptible to influence, and that on September 22, 1938, she was incapable of executing any conveyance and incapable of taking care of her business matters; that Dewey C. Lindgren was her personal and business manager and confidential agent and as such directed and controlled his mother and her business affairs, and had his mother under his complete subjection and domination; that as a result of the confidential relation existing between Dewey C. Lindgren and his mother, he wilfully, wrongfully, fraudulently and unlawfully persuaded and caused her to execute the deed and lease in controversy. The deed conveyed one hundred and sixty acres of land out of a total of four hundred and eighty acres belonging to Hadda Lingren. The home occupied by Dewey C. Lindgren, his family, and Hadda Lindgren, and other farm improvements, were located on the lands conveyed.
The answer denied all allegations of the complaint charging improper conduct on the part of Dewey C. Lindgren, and alleged that the conveyance of the one hundred and sixty acres on September 22, 1938, as well as the lease, was for a valuable consideration, and that the deed and lease were in all respects valid.
The trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, observing their demeanor, and hearing their testimony, and at the conclusion of the trial and after a consideration of the briefs filed by the respective parties, made elaborate and detailed findings of fact upon which the decree was based, and upon which judgment was entered.
In the findings of fact the trial court determined that there was a consideration for the conveyance from Hadda Lindgren to Dewey C. Lindgren on September 22, 1938, and that consideration was $3,000, and determined that this was adequate consideration for the conveyance under the circumstances.
The court further found that the 'overwhelming weight' of the evidence disclosed that Hadda Lindgren, at the time of executing the conveyance, was perfectly sound mentally and was not in any respect afflicted with senile dementia, and that she was strong willed and accustomed to the management of her own affairs, and 'that she was not dominated by her son' in the transaction in question.
The trial court further found that there was no evidence upon which the court could 'even speculate' that Hadda Lindgren was under the influence of Dewey C. Lindgren at the time the deed and lease were made, executed and delivered.
We have read and carefully considered the rather voluminous record in this case and shall discuss the summarized specifications of points in the order mentioned hereinBefore .
1. It may be conceded that the son occupied a fiduciary relation to this mother, but this fact is not fatal to the validity of the deed and lease. It is only the improper use of the fiduciary relation that is to be condemned. If the son had exercised the advantage acquired by reason of his fiduciary relation to cause his mother to execute a deed and lease against her free will or desire, and this had been established, it would vitiate the deed. However, there is no such evidence here. The mother selected her attorney to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krueger v. Ary
...will of the grantor to the extent that he is prevented from voluntary action and is deprived of free agency." Anderson v. Lindgren, 113 Colo. 401, 406, 157 P.2d 687, 689 (1945). The trial court's instruction here on undue influence was consistent with this test. Once a fiduciary relationshi......
-
Chavez v. Chavez-Krumland (In re Chavez)
...court's rejection of his instructions for (1) undue influence, see CJI-Civ. 34:15 (2022); (2) capacity, see Anderson v. Lindgren , 113 Colo. 401, 406-07, 157 P.2d 687, 689 (1945) ; (3) knowledge of an agent imputable to the principal, see CJI-Civ. 8:15 (2022); and (4) acknowledged deeds, se......
-
Moedy v. Moedy
...free agent would not have been done. Tost v. Smies, 74 Colo. 435, 216 P. 545. We find this rule ably stated in Anderson v. Lindgren, Admr., 113 Colo. 401, 406, 157 P.2d 687, 689: 'There is no doubt that the mother was influenced by her affection and confidence in her son and by her gratitud......
-
Mehlbrandt v. Hall
...Tost v. Smies, 74 Colo. 435, 216 P. 545, Mackall v. Mackall, 135 U.S. 167, 172, 10 S.Ct. 705, 707, 34 L.Ed. 84, and Anderson v. Lindgren, 113 Colo. 401, 157 P.2d 687, 689. In the Anderson-Lindgren case, Hadda Lindgren, a few months before her death, executed a deed and lease to her son Dewe......
-
A Donor's Rights to Disposition of Assets Versus Undue Influence Protection
...15. Dukeminier et al., Wills, Trusts, and Estates 180 (8th ed., Aspen Pub.,2009). 16. Krueger, supra note 2, quoting Anderson v. Lindgren, 157 P.2d 687, 689 (Colo. 1945). See also In re Will of Jones, 669 S.E.2d 572, 575 (N.C. 2008), citing In re Will of Turnage, 179 S.E. 332, 333 (1935). 1......
-
Being of Sound Mind: Standards for Testamentary (and Other) Capacity
...supra note 49 at 1303. [51] Id., citing Cunningham, supra note 1 at 981. [52] Columbia, supra note 49 at 1303. [53] Anderson v. Lindgren, 157 P.2d 687, 689 (Colo. 1945). [54] White v. White, 368 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1962). See also Kiley, “Setting Aside the Grantor’s Deed on Grounds of Incapacit......
-
Setting Aside the Grantor's Deed on Grounds of Incapacity and Undue Influence - May 2007 - Elder Law
...to set aside a deed on the grounds of grantor incapacity and undue influence. NOTES 1. CRS § 26-3.1-203(4). 2. Anderson v. Lindgren, 157 P.2d 687 (Colo. 1945). 3. Id. 4. Green v. Hulse, 142 P. 416 (Colo. 1914). 5. 5 Williston on Contracts§ 10:8 (4th ed.). 6. In re Estate of Gallavan, 89 P.3......