Colquitt v. Lowe

• Decision Date: 04 December 1944
• Docket Number: No. 39089.,39089.
• Citation: 184 S.W.2d 420
• Parties: COLQUITT v. LOWE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

184 S.W.2d 420

COLQUITT v. LOWE et al.

No. 39089.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 4, 1944.

Rehearing Denied January 2, 1945.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. McLaughlin, Judge.

Suit by Mack Colquitt against Gus Lowe and another to cancel certain deeds conveying realty. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

Freeman L. Martin, of St. Louis, for appellants.

John Grossman, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BARRETT, Commissioner.

Mack Colquitt deeded two pieces of real estate in the City of St. Louis to Gus and Janie Lowe. In his suit to cancel the deeds he alleged that he was seventy-five years old, absent-minded, senile, hard of hearing and subject to being led by flattery and attention. He alleged that he became acquainted, "in a casual way," with Gus and Janie and that they "set upon a course of procedure, the object and ultimate motive of which was to prevail upon the plaintiff to deed said properties to the defendants." He stated that their course of procedure was to lavish him with attention and flattery and ply him with quantities of liquor for the purpose of prevailing upon him to deed them his property. He stated that as a result of their conduct his "free agency and mind" were destroyed and their wills substituted for his. He alleged that the conveyances were made in 1941 but he did not become aware of the fact until June 1943. He plead that the conveyances were without consideration and that he never intended or desired, under any circumstance, to deed his property to the defendants.

The trial court found for Colquitt and canceled the two quit claim deeds and found that Gus and Janie Lowe had no interest in the property. The trial court specifically found, after a request by the defendants, that the facts were as the plaintiff alleged them to be. He found that the parties became acquainted in 1939 and that the defendants immediately began to display great interest in Colquitt's welfare. He found that they became constant callers at Colquitt's home, that they frequently took him on automobile rides, that they often took him to their home for meals and plyed him with liquor. The court found that Colquitt showed "definite evidence of mental deterioration." He found that Colquit was senile and that his addiction to drink had lessened his sense of values. The court specifically found that Colquitt was intoxicated when he signed the deeds and that "his mind was so subjected to the influence of the defendant, Gus Lowe, that at the time of the execution of the deeds his will was entirely destroyed." The court found that the Lowes' testimony that they paid $1,000 for one of the pieces of property and $1,500 for the other property was false and that they never paid or intended to pay any sum for the property and that Colquitt had no intention of conveying it to them. The court found that the Lowes' explanation of the whole transaction was a fantastic fabrication.

Upon this appeal the Lowes contend that Colquitt's petition wholly failed to state a cause of action entitling him to relief on the ground of undue influence. They urge, upon this trial de novo, that the trial court's finding and decree are not supported by substantial, credible evidence and that this court, after weighing the evidence, should find the facts in their favor and adjudge them to be the lawful owners of the two pieces of real estate.

We have set forth the substance of Colquitt's petition and obviously the allegations of mental weakness, no consideration, a course of conduct by the defendants consisting of unusual attention and flattery, the exercise of undue influence and a transfer of valuable property is a sufficient statement (as against the charge of wholly failing to state a cause of action) upon which to predicate equitable relief for undue influence. Turnmire v. Claybrook, Mo.Sup., 204 S.W. 178; Morris v. Morris, Mo.Sup., 4 S.W.2d 459.

Mack Colquitt was seventy-three years old when he executed the two deeds. He lived alone, in a room, in one of his pieces of property and had no income except the rent from the property. He was unlettered and in 1934 suffered a paralytic stroke and afterwards was subject to periods of forgetfulness and unable to care for himself or his property as formerly. The tenants collected his rent and cared for him when he was drunk or ill. Gus and Janie Lowe were not related to Colquitt. They were young people; Gus was thirty-eight, just embarked in the undertaking business. By their own testimony they often called on Colquitt at his room, took him for automobile rides, occasionally fed him, and, in the circumstances, displayed an unusual interest in him. Thus this is not a case of the performance of natural filial duties or of a normal interest and influence based on blood relationship as in Forbes v. Winslow, Mo.Sup., 270 S.W. 327. Here the parties were not related and their association was not based on past acquaintance. Jones, Ex'r, v. Belshe, 238 Mo. 524, 141 S.W. 1130. Colquitt was not in good physical condition and, as the court found, his mental faculties had been seriously impaired by disease and drink. Both of these circumstances, physical and mental condition, must be considered. Manahan v. Manahan, Mo.Sup., 52 S.W.2d 825; Morris v. Morris, supra; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 62, subsec. b; 16 Am.Jur., Sec. 39. While the Lowes deny that they drank or that they gave Colquitt liquor it is a fair inference from the evidence and from Colquitt's statement that he had been a heavy drinker for forty years and that Gus Lowe often drank with him and sometimes brought him home drunk and even that he was intoxicated when he executed the two deeds. This is a further circumstance which may be considered in passing on this transaction. Ryan v. Ryan, 174 Mo. 279, 73 S.W. 494.

It is not necessary to detail all the evidence in this case and weigh the testimony of every witness — it is sufficient to consider the defendants' explanation of the transactions and the circumstances under which they say the two deeds were separately executed and contrast that explanation with certain incontrovertible facts to demonstrate that the trial court justly found against them.

They say that the circumstances under which the first deed was executed were that in March 1941 Colquitt came to their home one day and said he needed a thousand dollars so he could go to Oklahoma and see about his property there. He said he would give them a deed to one of the properties. On March 15th he returned and they told him they had decided to buy the property. They said the arrangement was to "Buy the property on this basis that he would have a home as long as he lived, you see, and collect the rents until I moved out or would take the rent over." They went to a lawyer's office and a deed was prepared and Colquitt executed it. They then returned to the Lowes and they paid him $1,000 in cash which they had hidden about the house, under the rugs, in the chiffonier and under the mattresses and for which they took his receipt — Janie writing the receipt.

They say the circumstances of the second deed were that in May 1941 Colquitt came to their home and told them he was in serious trouble over having shot a former tenant, Walker, and that he wanted to sell his other property. He returned on May 15th and Gus told him they had decided to buy it. Janie was not home that day and Gus took him to the same lawyer and the second deed was executed. Gus wanted a witness to the fact of his paying Colquitt $1,500 so they drove by the home of Gus' friend, Henry Cheatham, and Gus told Henry what he wanted. The three of them then went to Colquitt's room and Gus counted out $1,500 in cash, fifteen piles of bills with one hundred dollars in each pile, for which Gus took Colquitt's receipt.

As to the first transaction, Colquitt denied that the Lowes gave him a thousand dollars or any other sum and no one saw him with any such sums. He never went to Oklahoma and this is all the evidence with reference to...