Finch v. Goldstein

• Decision Date: 31 May 1927
• Citation: 245 N.Y. 300,157 N.E. 146
• Parties: FINCH et al. v. GOLDSTEIN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

245 N.Y. 300

157 N.E. 146

FINCH et al.

v.GOLDSTEIN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 31, 1927.

Action by Elsie Finch and another, as committee of the person and estate of Howard Finch, an incompetent person, and another, against David Goldstein. A judgment of the Special Term, dismissing the complaint on the merits (126 Misc. Rep. 469, 214 N. Y. S. 85), was reversed on the law and facts, and judgment for plaintiff directed by the Appellate Division, Third Department (217 App. Div. 707, 215 N. Y. S. 843), and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 217 App. Div. 799, 216 N. Y. S. 830.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Irving B. Feinberg, of Brooklyn, Michael Gold, of New York City, and Homer I. Harris, of Brooklyn, for appellant.

George F. Kaufman, of Saugerties, for respondents.

CRANE, J.

Howard Finch was the owner of a farm of 237 acres situated at Cairo, Greene county, N. Y., subject to the dower of his mother, Elsie Finch. He became mentally deranged and on September 16, 1920, was summarily committed to the Hudson River State Hospital for the Insane at Poughkeepsie on an order of the county judge of Greene county pursuant to the provisions of section 80 of the Insanity Law (Consol. Laws, c. 27).

Thereafter and on June 30, 1921, while still confined in the state hospital, the said Howard Finch conveyed the property to the defendant in this case, David Goldstein, by deed duly executed, taking back a purchasemoney mortgage, which is being foreclosed in this action. The defendant knew that Finch had been committed as an insane person and that at the time of the conveyance he was confined in the hospital. The grantee entered into possession of the property and still retains the same.

On the 4th day of April, 1925, in proceedings duly instituted in the Supreme Court of this state, an inquisition was taken pursuant to the provisions of section 1356 of the Civil Practice Act, wherein said Howard Finch was adjudged an incompetent and incapable of handling his property, and Winnie Finch was thereupon appointed committee of his person and property and duly qualified. The committee brings this action, ratifying the conveyance made by Howard Finch to the defendant, and seeking a foreclosure of the purchase-money mortgage. The defendant has pleaded the insanity of Howard Finch at the time of the conveyance to him in a counterclaim wherein he asks that the transaction be declared null and void and his purchase price returned with interest.

If the deed made by Howard Finch while in the state hospital and before the appointment of the committee were void, the defendant is entitled to the relief asked for, passing the question of his estoppel. If the deed were only voidable at the election of the incompetent or his committee, the plaintiff is entitled to foreclosure. What effect did the order of commitment of the county judge on the 16th day of September, 1920, have upon the capacity of Howard Finch to make the deed to the defendant before the inquisition and appointment of the committee.

This court said in Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252, at page 262,69 N. E. 542, 545 (101 Am. St. Rep. 806):

‘Although the decisions of the courts upon the subject are not uniform, according to the weight of authority in this state, as well as elsewhere, the deed of a lunatic before office found is voidable only and not void.’

Again in Smith v. Ryan, 191 N. Y. 452, 455,84 N. E. 402 (19 L. R. A. [N. S.] 461, 123 Am. St. Rep. 609,14 Ann. Cas. 505), we followed this decision, saying:

‘The law is settled in this state that the deeds and contracts of a person of unsound mind, who has not been judicially declared incompetent, are voidable, not absolutely void, * * * and the same doctrine generally prevails throughout this country and in England.’

What is meant in these decisions by ‘office found’ or ‘judicially declared incompetent?’ They have reference to proceedings under the Civil Practice Act for the appointment of a committee to take possession of and care for the property of an incompetent. Until the appointment of a committee neither the state nor any one else has any power or control over his property or any authority to act in his behalf. He alone remains in possession of his property and can dispose of it. If as a fact he be incompetent at the time he acts, his transactions may be set aside at his election either by himself or by a committee subsequently appointed. His acts before the appointment of a committee are thus voidable, not void.

The provisions of article 4 of the Insanity Law and those of article 81 of the Civil Practice Act have two distinct objects in view. Under the Insanity Law a person alleged to be insane may be committed to an institution for the custody and treatment of the insane upon an order made by a county judge or justice of the Supreme Court. The commitment is upon a certificate of lunacy made by two qualified medical examiners in lunacy, accompanied by a verified petition. The insane person may be committed to a state hospital or to the care and custody of a relative. He may be...