Hall v. Wright

Decision Date06 February 1968
Docket NumberNo. 52569,52569
Citation156 N.W.2d 661,261 Iowa 758
CourtIowa Supreme Court
PartiesGertrude I. HALL, Appellee, v. Robert A. WRIGHT, John L. Haskins and Grandquist Construction Company, Appellants.

Richard L. Pinegar, Duffield, Pinegar & Tapscott, Des Moines, for appellant, Robert A. Wright.

Henry T. McKnight, Des Moines, for appellee.

MASON, Justice.

As a result of transactions hereinafter detailed, plaintiff Gertrude Hall lost her home in Des Moines. She brought this law action in three counts against those involved. Here we are concerned only with the charge of fraud against her attorney Robert A. Wright. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff of $10,000 actual damages and $15,000 exemplary damages. The trial court overruled Wright's motion for new trial on condition plaintiff file a remittitur to $17,400, which she did. Wright has appealed from judgment on the reduced amount. He will be referred to as defendant.

Plaintiff owned a home at 1308 Keo Way. Defendant Haskins owned a lot on 15th Street Place on which he was building two houses. In February 1961, following several months' discussion, Mrs. Hall agreed to exchange her home for one of the new houses at 1223 15th Street Place and $1500 cash. She called defendant Wright whom she had known since he was a child and who had previously acted as her attorney. He wrote up the agreement in the form of an offer to buy. It was subject to zoning the Keo Way Property commercial.

At that time there was a discussion as to the deeds and abstracts of title. Mr. Wright told Mrs. Hall a new abstract would have to be drawn up for the Haskins property and that Haskins had clear title. On April 3 Wright wrote Haskins, advising him the Keo Way property was properly zoned and asking for an abstract of title to be examined to ascertain whether or not he had merchantable title.

On June 13 Haskins brought a blank piece of paper to Mrs. Hall for her signature. She called Wright. He said: 'Go ahead and sign the papers, Gertrude. I wish you would stop questioning what I tell you to do because I won't tell you anything wrong.' She asked about the deed and abstract. Mr. Wright said it hadn't been made up yet 'but not to worry about it, he would see that I got my deed and abstract with clear title to 1223 15th Street Place.'

She testified: 'On about February 1, 1961, when Mr. Wright told me that Haskins could produce clear title and he would see I got it, I believed him. Relying on that I deeded my property.' The deed was taken to Wright who notarized her signature and delivered it to Haskins who took the deed to Stoner-McCray System the same day. Wright had Haskins execute the following statement:

'I am receiving a warranty deed of Lot 73 Keo Way, Plat No. 3 for the purpose of securing a loan to pay off Mrs. Hall in accordance with an offer to buy ex. Feb. 6, 1961.

'It is understood that this warranty deed is null and void unless said agreement with purchase(r) is completed, which includes the transfer of title to 1223 15th Street Place and payment of fifteen hundred dollars in cash. John L. Haskins.'

Wright kept the original statement and gave Haskins a copy to take with the deed. The deed of the Keo Way property from Mrs. Hall to Haskins was recorded June 14 without recording the conditions under which it was given. Wright at no time examined an abstract but testified he checked the records and found title in Haskins subject to a mortgage. As a matter of fact, Haskins and his wife had deeded 1223 15th Street Place to Grandquist Construction Company on May 27, 1961. They claim the deed was to serve as security. Grandquist was to get a new mortgage and finish the houses which Haskins was financially unable to complete. This deed was recorded June 20, 1961.

On June 18, 1961, Haskins gave Mrs. Hall the key to the 15th Street Place house and she moved in.

By a deed dated June 21, 1961, Haskins transferred the Keo Way property to Stoner-McCray System. It was recorded June 28, 1961. Although the record is not clear as to the exact date, sometime between June 14 and 28, Mr. Wright checked the deed from Hall to Haskins with the attorney for Stoner-McCray. He, therefore, knew at that time Haskins was assuming ownership of the Keo Way property contrary to the conditions under which the deed was delivered to him. There is no evidence he did anything to try to stop the conveyance or whether the transfer had been completed at the time of the conference.

On June 23 he received a check from Haskins for the balance due Mrs. Hall out of the $1500 difference between the agreed value of the properties after her mortgage on the Keo Way property and other expenses were paid. Wright gave Mrs. Hall $392.41 cash after deducting his fees of $150. Also on June 23 Haskins executed a deed to the 15th Street Place property to Mrs. Hall. This deed was kept by Wright and never recorded. Haskins' wife had refused to sign the deed presumably because she had previously signed a deed conveying this property to Grandquist Construction Company. The deed to Grandquist had been recorded June 20.

On the 30th Grandquist mortgaged this property to Polk County Federal Savings & Loan Association.

On July 15 Grandquist contracted to sell the 15th Street Place property to Haskins. By agreement dated August 1 Grandquist and Haskins agreed the property should be conveyed to Mrs. Hall when fully paid for.

Mrs. Hall talked to Mr. Wright in August about the deed and abstract. 'He said that he had just found out Haskins had a mortgage on 1223 15th St. Place * * * that his father-in-law is going to give him the money to pay it off, and we will just have to wait.

'I continued to call Attorney Wright constantly, every day. And I called until he told me again that I was a damn nuisance, that I was in the house and what was I worrying about.

'I never knew anything about a Mr. Grandquist.'

On September 15, 1961, Wright obtained a Confession of Judgment from Haskins to Gertrude Hall in the amount of $14,500. In response to her written request on October 31, 1961, he delivered to her copies of this judgment, the real estate contract between Haskins and Grandquist and their August 1 agreement.

'In 1962 I talked to Mr. Wright and he told me he had been trying to catch Haskins. He told me to call him if I saw Haskins drive up in his car and that Mr. Wright would come over and we would get this thing straightened out about my deed and abstract.

'When I saw Mr. Haskins come home I called Attorney Wright and he came to my home. He went over to Mr. Haskins' and then they came over to my home and they assured me that the mortgage would be clear and I would get a deed and abstract and clear title to the place.'

She saw no more of Wright or Haskins in 1962. By the summer of 1963 Haskins had paid only $450 on the contract with Grandquist. Plaintiff as party in possession was served with 2 notices of forfeiture during 1963. She gave them to Wright. She testified: 'He told me not to worry, 'If I have to, I will pay for it my ownself, because I feel morally responsible'.'

Defendant apparently was trying to negotiate some arrangement by which Mrs. Hall could stay in the property. Commencing in February, 1964, he tried to get a contract between Grandquist and Mrs. Hall. She testified: '* * * he came to my home February, 1964 and rang the doorbell between 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock in the morning and I was thinking it was Joy, a lady I used to babysit for, and I told him to come in and he said this isn't Joy, this is your attorney, Bob Wright. I said, 'Oh, Bob, come on in.' Then I said, 'I'll get up and get some clothes on and I'll be out there.' And he said, 'Oh, I know where the bedroom is.' And he came into my bedroom.

'Q. What did he say? A. He said, 'I have some papers I want you to sign.'

'He said, 'I want to get your name on this paper to show that you are the rightful, lawful one to have your name on the abstract.'

'And I have a bookcase bed, and he took a book and put it down there and laid this paper on it like that (indicating), and he said, 'Sign here.'

'I said, 'Well, Bob, wait until I get up and get my eyeglasses so I can read it.' He says, 'You don't have to read behind me.' He said, 'I'm your attorney, Just sign this.' So, I signed it.'

'My bedroom door was setting like this (indicating), and right here is the door going out into a little hallway I had, and Attorney Wright left out of my bedroom and he went down the hall, and I guess about three or four steps, then he whirled around and came back in. He said, 'Oh Gertrude,' he said 'Here's a piece of paper that went with that. I forgot to have you sign it.'

'And I said, 'you better let me read that paper'. He said, 'Oh', he said, 'it just goes with that.' I said, 'Okay'. So, I signed the paper. Well, something kept, I don't know, worrying me, and that paper looked like something was wrong with the paper, so the next day I called Attorney Wright and I said, 'Attorney Wright, what was that little paper you brought back in and had me sign?' He said, 'Oh, that was just a piece that went onto that other paper.' He said, 'It wasn't nothing to it."

The second paper she signed was a promissory note. She testified: 'Q. Did you know at that time that Exhibit 'N' was a promissory note for $850.00? A. No, sir. I didn't have no $850.00, so it wouldn't have been signed, because I didn't have any.'

By October 22, 1964, a real estate contract between Grandquist and Mrs. Hall was fully executed. It was dated May 30, 1964, and provided for her to purchase the 15th Street Place property from Grandquist for $13,500, $1350 down and the $12,000 balance at $100 per month with 6 1/2% Interest commencing July 1. The downpayment consisted of Mrs. Hall's $850 promissory note and $500 cash paid by Wright.

Wright admitted Mrs. Hall could not make the monthly payments at the time the contract was executed and expected to make the payments himself. By October 1964, when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1984
    ...standard of proof: a preponderance of clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Grefe, 231 N.W.2d at 864; Hall v. Wright, 261 Iowa 758, 767, 156 N.W.2d 661, 666 (1968). They had to prove the following elements of fraud: "(1) a material misrepresentation, (2) made knowingly (scienter), (......
  • Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • May 20, 1997
    ...467 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 1991) (citing Sinnard v. Roach, 414 N.W.2d 100, 105 (Iowa 1987), which in turn cites Hall v. Wright, 261 Iowa 758, 766, 156 N.W.2d 661, 666 (1968), and also citing Beeck v. Kapalis, 302 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Iowa 1981)); Air Host Cedar Rapids v. Cedar Rapids Airport Comm'......
  • Jones Distributing Co. v. White Consol. Industries
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 15, 1996
    ...467 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 1991) (citing Sinnard v. Roach, 414 N.W.2d 100, 105 (Iowa 1987), which in turn cites Hall v. Wright, 261 Iowa 758, 766, 156 N.W.2d 661, 666 (1968), and also citing Beeck v. Kapalis, 302 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Iowa 1981)); Air Host Cedar Rapids v. Cedar Rapids Airport Comm'......
  • Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1969
    ...to plaintiff, whether or not it was contradicted. Tuttle v. Longnecker, 258 Iowa 393, 396, 138 N.W.2d 851, 853; and Hall v. Wright, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 661, 668--669. To entitle plaintiffs to have their cases considered by a jury there must be facts from which the inference of negligence may b......
  • 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