Daniels v. Champion, 40633
| Decision Date | 26 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 40633,40633 |
| Citation | 592 S.W.2d 869 |
| Parties | Dorothy DANIELS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard L. CHAMPION et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John L. Sullivan, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kent E. Karohl, Kirkwood, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiffs sued to set aside several joint tenancy accounts and two deeds on grounds of mistake and/or undue influence. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the issues in favor of defendants and, we affirm.
Sixty-seven year old Magdelene Spachek died March 19, 1977, some five months after the death of Albert, her third husband. She left two sisters as her sole heirs, one of whom's son, Richard L. Champion, and his wife, Imogene, were the recipients of Mrs. Spachek's estate via the joint tenancy accounts and two deeds here at issue.
Magdelene remained in close communication with her sisters during most of her life. There was no evidence that she had reason to disinherit them. However, in February of 1976, Magdelene and Albert began adding Richard's name to their joint accounts and certificates. Upon Albert's death, these accounts and certificates were then transferred to Magdelene and Richard jointly, with right of survivorship. Magdelene also deeded all of her real estate to Richard, reserving unto herself a life estate. Both parties agree that the transfers of all such properties were in due and proper form.
Sometime after having disposed of all property in the manner described above, she had a will prepared. And, although there was no property remaining for disposition under the will, she apparently told her sisters that she was glad the will treated her relatives so equally.
A successful plaintiff must prove undue influence and/or mistake by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Steller v. Steller, 401 S.W.2d 473, 478 (Mo.1966).
The presently existing standard of review requires that we affirm the trial court's ruling unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The judgment below must be presumed correct and the burden of proving it erroneous rests upon plaintiffs. Insofar as testimony is inconsistent, we accord deference not only to the trial court's finding depending on credibility but also to that court's conclusions. Snadon v. Gayer, 566...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMullin v. Borgers
...Barrett v. Flynn, 728 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Mo.App.1987). See also, Lesh v. Lesh, 718 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Mo.App.1986); Daniels v. Champion, 592 S.W.2d 869, 869 (Mo.App.1979). Plaintiff argues these cases are inapplicable because they were court tried and no instructions were given. This argument i......
-
Hawkins v. Allison
...has applied the same rule in actions involving joint accounts in financial institutions. Lesh, 718 S.W.2d at 532; Daniels v. Champion, 592 S.W.2d 869, 869 (Mo.App.1979). Plaintiffs, in their brief, tacitly acknowledge they had the burden of proving that Linda's interest in account number 15......
-
Wingate v. Griffin
...A trial court judgment is presumed correct, with the burden of proving it erroneous resting upon appellant, see Daniels v. Champion, 592 S.W.2d 869 (Mo.App.1979). Wherein it exists and to the extent that the record contains inconsistent testimony, the reviewing court will defer to the trial......
-
Lesh v. Lesh, 50674
...Perkins v. Rantz, 631 S.W.2d 907, 911 (Mo.App.1982), deferring to the trial court's determination of credibility. Daniels v. Champion, 592 S.W.2d 869, 869 (Mo.App.1979). Son had the burden of proof to show undue influence by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Perkins, 631 S.W.2d at 911;......