Bennett v. LaDoux

• Decision Date: 23 January 1965
• Docket Number: No. 43898,43898
• Citation: Bennett v. LaDoux, 398 P.2d 590, 194 Kan. 216 (Kan. 1965)
• Parties: Mary L. BENNETT, Appellee, v. R. M. LaDOUX, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 590

398 P.2d 590

194 Kan. 216

Mary L. BENNETT, Appellee, v. R. M. LaDOUX, Appellant.

No. 43898.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 23, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action to cancel and set aside deeds alleged to have been given in consideration of grantee's agreement to support and care for grantor during her lifetime, the court found that such agreement had been made and that through no fault of grantor the grantee had breached the agreement, and entered judgment setting aside the deeds and quieting title to the property in plaintiff grantor. Held--the findings and judgment are supported by the evidence and no error has been shown.

Patrick J. Warnick, Wichita, argued the cause, Alan B. Phares, Wichita, with him on the brief, for appellant.

Harry E. Robbins, Jr., Wichita, argued the cause, Keith Sanborn, Lyndon Gamelson and Donald C. Tinker, Jr., Wichita, with him on the brief, for appellee.

PRICE, Justice:

This appeal was commenced originally as one to quiet title to two residential properties in the city of Wichita.

Defendant's answer alleged that she was the fee title owner of the properties under general warranty deeds from plaintiff.

Plaintiff's reply admitted the execution of the deeds but alleged that at the time of their execution she was 78 years of age and was distraught over her husband's recent death, and that the deeds were executed upon the oral promise and agreement of defendant to furnish support and care for plaintiff for the remainder of plaintiff's life. The reply further pleaded a breach of such agreement by defendant and prayed that the deeds be canceled and that plaintiff's title be quieted.

Defendant's answer to the reply denied the alleged oral agreement for care and support, and pleaded that the consideration for the deeds was love and affection, in addition to other acts understood and agreed to by and between the parties.

The testimony of the parties followed generally the allegations of their respective pleadings.

In rendering judgment for plaintiff the trial court found:

'That the plaintiff deeded the property described in her Petition to the defendant with the understanding and contract that the plaintiff would be cared for for the rest of her life by the defendant, and the Court further finds that such was the intent of the parties and that the defendant did not care for the plaintiff and breached said contract and not at the fault of the plaintiff.

'The Court further finds generally for the plaintiff and against the defendant.

'The Court further finds that the defendant, the grantee in the conveyances described in the pleadings, repudiated and failed to perform her agreement and the Court finds that the conveyances of the property described in plaintiff's Petition should be cancelled and set aside, and that the title thereto should be quieted in the plaintiff and against the defendant and anyone claiming by, through or under the defendant.'

Judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant has appealed.

Except for one or two matters--actually the only point in this fact case is the familiar question whether the findings and judgment are supported by the evidence.

No purpose would be served by detailing the evidence as to the relationship of the parties and concerning the transactions in question. We have read the record, and the findings are amply supported by it and therefore are binding on appeal. The principle of law involved is discussed...