Crider v. Crider

Citation635 N.E.2d 204
Decision Date13 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 79A02-9209-CV-459,79A02-9209-CV-459
PartiesDonald E. CRIDER, Appellant-Defendant, v. Elsie CRIDER, Appellee-Plaintiff, v. Perry Oliver CRIDER, Elsie E. Crider, William O. Crider, Vica Elizabeth Smith and Carolyn L. Norfleet, Appellees-Third Party Defendants.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Gary G. Hanner, Hanner Hanner & Hanner, Rockville, for appellant.

James A. Gothard, Gothard & O'Connell, Lafayette, for appellees Elsie E. Crider, William O. Crider, Vica Elizabeth Smith, and Carolyn L. Norfleet.

Eric H. Burns, Hanna, Gerde & Burns, Lafayette, for appellee Perry Oliver Crider.

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

On December 5, 1990, Elsie Crider filed a claim to set aside two transfers of real estate that her husband, Perry, had made to their son, Donald. 1 Record at 23. On July 8, 1991, Donald Crider filed a third party complaint to quiet title, naming as defendants both of his parents, his brother and his two sisters. Record at 49. Following a bench trial in April of 1992, the trial court entered judgment setting aside one of the two real estate conveyances from Perry to Donald, reverting ownership of a 110-acre tract of land to Perry. Record at 157-161. Following the denial of his motion to correct errors, Donald perfected this appeal. We affirm.

Donald raises two issues for our review, which we have restated as follows:

I. Did the trial court err by requiring Donald to rebut, by clear and unequivocal evidence, the presumption that the 110-acre land transfer from his father to himself was fraudulent even though the conveyance was one from a father to a son?

II. Did the trial court err by not allowing certain testimony to be considered for the truth of the matter asserted therein?

FACTS

The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal the following. In 1926, Elsie and Perry Crider were married. Early in their marriage, the two purchased a farm of approximately 117 acres for $5,000. To pay for the farm, Perry borrowed $2,000 from his sister and Perry and Elsie jointly borrowed $3,000 from the bank. Because of an earlier experience Perry had with his parents, he refused Elsie and Perry lived on the farm together from 1944 until 1976. During this time, Elsie and Perry had four children: Donald, William, Elizabeth (Betty) and Carolyn. Everyone in the family helped Perry work the farm. As the children grew older, they moved away from the farm, but periodically some would return. At one time, Donald and his wife, Millie, as well as Betty and her two children, all shared a small, three-room house on the farm. Following a "knock down drag out" between Donald and Betty, Perry ordered both families to immediately leave the farm house, which they did. Record at 291. Several months later, Donald and Millie returned.

to have Elsie's name placed on the deed. Instead, Perry insisted that the farm be titled in his name only.

In 1967, Donald moved a fertilizer shed and part of a trailer onto a five-acre portion of the farm selected by Perry. Two years later, Donald and Perry had completed a foundation for a shed and Donald and Millie began living on the farm full time. Donald's residence and Perry's residence were within sight of each other.

In either 1974 or 1975, Donald called a family meeting which was attended by all of the children, as well as Elsie and Perry. Donald's purpose for calling the meeting was to ask the family members if they would agree to let him own the five (5) acres of land upon which he lived as his share of the farm provided Perry would also agree. Donald wanted to enlarge his residence and, because he and his father "were constantly at war and always [had] been," Donald desired a section of land which he owned and over which Perry had no control. Record at 295. Since Donald already had buildings on the acreage, Elsie and the children had no problems with, and agreed to, Donald acquiring the five (5) acres from Perry as his share of the farm. On May 14, 1976, Perry deeded approximately 5.7 acres of the family farm to Donald. 2

Sometime in 1976, Elsie moved off the farm because "[Perry] used his fist once to [sic] often.... [She had] 50 years of it and [she] figured that was enough." Record at 286-7. After a few months had passed, Perry began visiting Elsie weekly at her residence. Perry tried to talk Elsie into moving her trailer onto the farm, but Elsie declined. She did, however, visit Perry occasionally. Elsie noticed that, beginning in approximately 1976, Perry started imagining things. For instance, he imagined that a family lived in an attic above his trailer, that people rode horses around his trailer in the winter without leaving tracks in the snow, and that people were stealing food from his refrigerator and cabinets. During this same time, Perry became suspicious of others whom he believed were trying to take his land away from him.

In October of 1984, Perry saw a neighbor, Tom, jogging out of the driveway to the farm and thought that Tom had been to Perry's house. 3 Perry chased Tom down and attacked him with a cane, knocking Tom's glasses off. Tom ran home, called Donald's wife, Millie, told her about the incident and stated that he intended to report the incident to the police. Millie called Donald at work, told him what had happened, and, shortly thereafter, Donald met with his mother and the police at his mother's trailer. After Donald provided the police with the necessary information about Perry and signed the required papers, the police picked Perry up and transported him to Wabash Valley Hospital Mental Health Care, Inc. (Wabash). Perry was detained at Wabash on an emergency basis until he was temporarily committed for ninety (90) days. Perry's hospital admission and discharge summary reads in part as follows:

"MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION: Patient is alert, cooperative and oriented to place, person, month, year, day of week but not date. He is dressed in matching gray work clothes and wears torn, dirty leather boots. He is somewhat malodorous Record at 509.

                and is in need of a bath.  He was fairly pleasant and friendly throughout most of the interview.  He became agitated and hostile after completion of the neurologic examination and claimed that he was 'beaten' with a hammer.  Speech was quite circumstantial and he would frequently digress, but most of his responses were fairly relevant and coherent.  His thoughts would tend to ramble and wander.  He did not appear to be significantly depressed or elated.  He felt angry for being 'shang-haied.'   His thoughts were occupied with a paranoid delusion involving the plot by the Russians, the Jews and his neighbors to drive him off his land.  He believes the Russians have declared their power over one-third of Georgia and are now attempting to gain control of the Indiana cornbelt.  His thoughts are rather circumstantial and characterized by excessive attention to detail.  He admits to hearing voices that emanate from hidden microphones.  He believes the voices are present because his dog barks.  When questioned regarding his memory, he became quite defensive....  His judgement is poor, based on his recent behavior.  He has no insight into his illness.  He was judged to be potentially dangerous to others on admission."
                

In November of 1984, Donald petitioned the court to be appointed temporary guardian of Perry. In his petition, Donald alleged that Perry "was incapable by reason of old age and infirmity of either managing his property, or caring for his person." Record at 873. Although Perry signed a consent to the appointment of Donald as his guardian, Donald later dismissed his petition because the other family members were opposed to the idea of Donald being Perry's guardian. On December 7, 1984, Perry was discharged from Wabash and returned to his trailer. Between 1989 and 1991, Donald, who was living approximately 500 feet from Perry, assisted Perry in paying most of his bills. Prior to that time, Donald had been simply checking Perry's books for him.

In May of 1989, Donald asked his attorney to prepare a warranty deed which would transfer the remaining 110 acres of the family farm from Perry to Donald, with Perry retaining a life estate. On May 30, 1989, Donald's attorney mailed the prepared deed to Donald, with instructions that the deed must be recorded when signed. On July 5, 1989, Donald took his father to the bank to make a deposit. After Perry had finished his banking business, Donald escorted Perry to the bank's notary public so that she could witness and notarize Perry's signing of the deed. Along the way, Donald and Perry did not discuss what Perry was about to sign. On July 7, 1989, Donald's attorney caused the deed to be recorded. Donald's attorney did not see Perry during this transaction and none of the family members were notified of the land transfer.

Just before July 4, 1989, Donald called his mother and asked her if she would like to spend the holiday with him. Elsie accepted Donald's invitation and spent the entire day and evening of July 4 at her son's house. During the day, Elsie saw quite a bit of Perry, who constantly wandered in and out of Donald's home, acting a bit erratically and appearing to be lost. For instance, on one occasion, Perry came into Donald's house and asked if Elsie had left. Elsie, who was sitting right in front of Perry at the time, simply reached out, touched Perry's arm and told him that she was still there.

In August of 1990, Donald had a long telephone conversation with his brother, William, concerning certain of their father's business matters. During the conversation, Donald told William that he had Perry sign a paper which put Donald "in the driver's seat now." Record at 438. According to Donald, he had "caught [Perry] in a weak moment and boy [he had taken] advantage of that." Record at 439. Because Donald would not tell William what paper their father had signed, William went...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Nichols v. Estate of Tyler
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 28, 2009
    ...say that the trial court erred by determining that Nichols failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence. See Crider v. Crider, 635 N.E.2d 204, 213 (Ind. Ct.App.1994) (holding that the facts presented amply supported the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in finding ......
  • Lasater v. House
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 30, 2004
    ...done if such control had not been exercised.'" In re Estate of Wade, 768 N.E.2d 957, 962 (Ind. Ct.App.2002) (quoting Crider v. Crider, 635 N.E.2d 204, 210 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), trans. The law of other jurisdictions also provides useful guidance on this issue. The Lasaters direct us to decisio......
  • Ferguson v. Watkins
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 13, 2012
    ...superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Estate of Banko, 622 N.E.2d 476, 479–80 (Ind.1993), and Crider v. Crider, 635 N.E.2d 204, 212–13 (Ind.Ct .App.1994), trans. denied. Nancy and Nyla assert, however, that the trial court's conclusion is wrong as a matter of law because......
  • Gatewood v. Gatewood
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 20, 2016
    ...the law does not apply a presumption of undue influence when a transaction is made between a parent and a child. In Crider v. Crider, 635 N.E.2d 204, 212–13 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), the court noted that our supreme court court has held “ ‘that no presumption of fraud or undue influence arises in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT