Doom v. Doom

Decision Date08 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 11644,11644
Citation289 N.E.2d 243,8 Ill.App.3d 186
PartiesWilliam E. DOOM, Executor of the Estate of Elmer C. Doom, Deceased, and Executor of the Estate of Jessie May Doom, Deceased, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Elmer Farrell DOOM and Mary Doom, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Drach, Terrell & Deffenbaugh, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Olsen & Miller, Springfield, for defendants-appellees.

SMITH, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff-executor from a judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon County refusing to set aside a deed made by the plaintiff's testatrix and her husband to their son and his wife, defendants. The deed in question was dated August 3, 1966, and conveyed a small residence property in Springfield to the two grantees. It contained the following provision:

'Reserving, however, a life estate in the said Grantors wherein it is agreed that the Grantees shall remain with and care for said Grantors during their respective lives, either in the above described premises or in such other home as may be established by the said Grantees for them.'

The basic issue is whether or not there was a substantial compliance on the part of the grantees in the deed with this contract or whether they repudiated their contract.

The grantors in the deed were in their near 80's at the time of the deed. The deed was made August 3, 1966, and recorded. Shortly thereafter, the defendants moved into the property, lived with and cared for the grantors until the death of grantor Elmer C. Doom in 1968, and thereafter continued to live with and care for Jessie May Doom until June 16, 1969. Jessie died on December 12, 1969, and in the interim between June 16 and December 12, lived with various other members of her family. In December, 1968, Jessie became unable to manage her affairs and the plaintiff was appointed her conservator and after June 16, 1969, instituted this suit to set aside the deed of the property alleging that on and after June 16, the defendants had failed to comply with their contract either in whole or in part and had failed and neglected to furnish a home or food or support of any kind to Jessie May Doom. This suit was apparently instituted in response to a letter received from defendants' attorney stating that they (defendants) could no longer care for the mother, that there appeared to be constant argument between Farrell's wife and the mother, and suggesting that the conservator make arrangements to have her cared for in the respective homes of the other members of the family, or arrange to have her placed in a nursing home. Grantees did not care for the mother after that date.

It is clear that the grantees in the deed in question did not 'remain with and care for said grantors during their respective lives' either in the house in which the mother had a life interest or in other premises which the grantees had the privilege of establishing for her. The grantees' performance of that contract came to an end on June 16. On June 13, the witness Melvin Doom went to the house to get his mother for the weekend. She was returned by him on the morning of June 16. The defendant, Elmer Farrell, came to the door, looked at his mother and said 'we didn't expect you back here'. The witness left. Later that same morning Farrell took his mother to his sister, left her with her suitcase and medication, and stated that he wanted nothing more to do with any of his family and that no phone calls were to be made at his house or his place of employment by his mother. This conduct together with the letter received from the defendants' attorney persuades us that the defendants had abandoned the contract or repudiated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 31, 1979
    ...the parties. O'Halloran v. Fitzgerald, 71 Ill. 53 (1873); Corzine v. Keith, 384 Ill. 435, 51 N.E.2d 538 (1943); Doom v. Doom, 8 Ill.App.3d 186, 289 N.E.2d 243 (4th Dist. 1972). In this case, the accounting by Sears of its profits from Roberts' invention and a determination of the sum of mon......
  • DeLance v. Hennessey
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1979
    ...November constitute a substantial breach of the agreement. Compare Ferrero v. Siel, 397 P.2d 501 (Okl.1964) with Doom v. Doom, 8 Ill.App.3d 186, 289 N.E.2d 243 (1972). We therefore do not decide whether an allegation of breach or the commencement of litigation charging breach will excuse th......
  • Seipel v. State Employees' Retirement System
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 8, 1972

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