Cotcha v. Ferguson

• Decision Date: 10 October 1933
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20883
• Parties: COTCHA v. FERGUSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1933 OK 518

25 P.2d 767

165 Okla. 295

COTCHA v. FERGUSON et al.

Case Number: 20883

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 10, 1933

Syllabus

¶0 1. Guardian and Ward--Validity of Transactions Between Guardian and Ward or Former Ward--Presumption From Confidential Relations.

Courts watch with great jealousy transactions of a guardian with his ward, or any dealings between them affecting the estate of the ward. From the confidential relations between them, it will be presumed that a ward was acting under the influence of the guardian, and all transactions between them prejudicially affecting the interests of the ward will be held to be constructively fraudulent. This presumption extends to transactions between them after the guardianship has ended, where the influence remains, and the control and dominion over the former ward's property still continues.

2. Same--Burden of Proof to Overcome Presumption of Invalidity of Transaction.

While equity does not deny the possibility of valid transactions between parties where a fiduciary relationship exists, yet because every such relation implies a condition of superiority held by one of the parties over the other, in every transaction between them by which the superior party obtains a possible benefit, equity raises a presumption against its validity, and casts upon that party the burden of proving affirmatively his compliance with equitable requisites, and of thereby overcoming the presumption.

3. Evidence--Effect of Presumption and Rebuttal Thereof.

A presumption cannot in itself possess probative weight, but merely necessitates evidence to meet the prima facie case which it creates. When evidence is introduced rebutting a presumption, the presumption disappears, leaving in evidence the basic facts which are to be weighed.

4. Statutory Provision--"Undue Influence."

Under the provisions of section 9420, O. S. 1931, undue influence consists, first, in the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him; second, in taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or, third, in taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.

5. Guardian and Ward--Degree of Proof Required to Set Aside Transaction Between Guardian and Ward on Ground of Undue Influence.

To set aside any transaction on the ground of undue influence, it must be shown not only that such influence existed and that it was exercised, but also that it was exercised effectively: that is, that it was the efficient cause in bringing about the transaction complained of.

6. Indians--Purpose of Statute Requiring Approval of Conveyance of Full-Blood Heir by County Judge.

The purpose of section 9 of the Act of Congress of May 27, 1908, requiring the approval of a conveyance by a full-blood Indian heir, was to put the Indian upon an equality with the prospective grantee in the matter of business sense or acumen, to the end that he may have a square deal, or at least be in no greater danger of suffering pecuniary loss by getting the worse of the deal than is ordinarily incident to such a transaction between persons dealing with each other at arm's length.

7. Same--Validity of Conveyance for Use and Benefit of Guardian Executed by Indian on Day She Reached Her Majority--Presumption of Undue Influence Held Rebutted.

A presumption of undue influence arising by reason of the execution of a deed by an adult full-blood Seminole Indian on the day she reached majority for the use and benefit of her guardian who had not been discharged as such, is rebutted, overcome, and destroyed by evidence showing, first, that that influence was not the efficient cause in bringing about the transaction, as shown by the evidence of the grantor that she did not rely on the statements of her guardian, that she refused to execute the deed until she consulted with her stepfather, and that prior to the execution thereof she had the independent advice of her stepfather; second, that there was no unfair advantage taken of her for the reason that an adequate consideration therefor was paid; and third, that the deed was approved by the county judge after a hearing at which the grantor testified and at which she asked the county judge to approve the deed.

8. Same--Judgment Upholding Conveyance Sustained.

Record examined, and held, that the judgment of the trial court is sustained by sufficient competent evidence.

Appeal from District Court, Seminole County; Geo. C. Crump, Judge.

Action by Sissie Cotcha against Walter Ferguson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. M. Beets, Allen G. Nichols, George Miller, and L. E. Neff, for plaintiff in error.

J. C. Denton, R. H. Wills, J. H. Crocker, I. L. Lockewitz, H. M. Gray, R. J. Roberts, Ray S. Fellows, and Davis & Patterson, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Seminole county against the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff in that court, denying her prayer for the recovery of possession of certain land theretofore conveyed by her and to quiet her title thereto.

¶2 The plaintiff, a full-blood Seminole Indian, acquired title to the land in question by inheritance from her father, Peter Cotcha. The defendant Walter Ferguson was her guardian. On July 1, 1915, he procured from her a conveyance of the land, the deed therefor being made in the name of the defendant Nellie Ferguson, who was his wife. On February 5, 1917, the plaintiff became of age. On that date J. A. Patterson, Walter Ferguson, and others went to the home of the plaintiff, and after some conversation with her she executed a deed to the land in question to J. A. Patterson, which deed was later approved by the county judge. That deed was delivered and the consideration therefor was paid. J. A. Patterson thereafter conveyed the property to Walter Ferguson, and Walter Ferguson and his wife executed deeds and leases to the other defendants in error, retaining a one-fourth interest in the mineral rights.

¶3 The trial court found that an adequate consideration was paid for the land and that the conveyance was approved by the county judge upon the testimony of the plaintiff and her stepfather and mother. It further found:

"The court is not unmindful of the fact that the guardian must deal at arm's length with his ward's interest not to perpetrate any fraud or make any misstatements in relation to any transactions, and in addition that the truthfulness of the statements must be proven, and there must be a fair consideration for any property he may acquire during the fiduciary relation between the parties, and inasmuch as Sissy Cotcha got all the land was worth at the time it was sold, there could be no legal fraud or actual fraud perpetrated upon her, and inasmuch as the county judge, acting agent appointed by the government, approved this deed, this court approves and finds that issues in favor of the defendant Walter Ferguson and his grantees, both as to the surface and the mineral rights as the pleadings and the proof offered designate, is in rentals, and judgment will be awarded."

¶4 In her petition the plaintiff, among other things, alleged that the deed executed on February 5, 1917, was executed by reason of confidence of the plaintiff in Walter Ferguson and his representation to her that it was a paper necessary in the closing of her guardianship.

¶5 At the trial the plaintiff testified that Ferguson and Patterson told her on the day she executed the deed in 1917 that they wanted to rent the land; that she understood that they wanted to rent the land, and that she signed the deed with that understanding. She testified that her stepfather was not at the place when they came and that she did not sign the deed until his return in the evening and after consulting with him.

¶6 Upon the production of the testimony of the plaintiff taken at the time of the approval of the deed by the county judge, the plea of the plaintiff that she thought the instrument was a paper pertaining to the closing of the guardianship, and her testimony that she thought the instrument was a lease was abandoned. At the hearing for the approval of the deed she testified as follows:

"Q. Sissie, at the time you signed the deed and received your $ 250 check, did you get that at the time that you executed the deed and that was all that was to come to you? A. Yes, well, that is all right; let the judge approve the deed. Q. Now, with that understanding, are you willing that the court approve the deed at this time? A. Yes, sir; that is all right. Q. You understand in signing this deed when the court approves it you will have no further interest in Peter Cotcha's land? A. Yes, sir. I understand that. Q. It will be satisfactory with you to let the court approve this deed? A. Yes, sir."

¶7 In addition to that testimony, her stepfather, Willie Powell, testified before the county judge at that time that he was present at the time of the execution of the deed; that he signed the deed, and that he knew that the plaintiff received $ 600 for her interest in the land.

¶8 The plaintiff relies on the contention that the deed in question was void for the reason that it was taken in the name of Patterson for the benefit of her guardian. While she testified that she had great confidence in Mr. Ferguson at that time, she did not testify that that confidence had any influence over her in the execution of the deed. Such testimony would have been in direct conflict with her pleading. She could scarcely contend in her pleading that she thought that she was signing a paper necessary to the closing of the guardianship and contend in her testimony that she was induced to execute a deed by reason of her confidence in her guardian or that she thought that she was signing a...