Harvey v. Irvin

• Court: Colorado Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McWILLIAMS
• Citation: Harvey v. Irvin, 401 P.2d 266, 156 Colo. 391 (Colo. 1965)
• Decision Date: 08 March 1965
• Docket Number: No. 20548,20548
• Parties: Leonard J. HARVEY and James G. Harvey, Plaintiffs in Error, v. G. E. IRVIN, Defendant in Error.

Page 266

401 P.2d 266

156 Colo. 391

Leonard J. HARVEY and James G. Harvey, Plaintiffs in Error, v. G. E. IRVIN, Defendant in Error.

No. 20548.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 8, 1965.

Rehearing Denied May 10, 1965.

Stinemeyer & Stinemeyer, Canon City, for plaintiffs in error.

Robert G. Fredrickson, Canon City, for defendant in error.

McWILLIAMS, Justice.

Dr. Irvin brought an action against James Harvey and the latter's son, Leonard Harvey, seeking cancellation of a certain lease and option to purchase agreement (hereinafter called the agreement) on the ground of fraud and deceit, and on the additional ground that the Harveys abused a confidential relationship then existing between the parties, to the end that the Harveys obtained an option to buy for $100,000 certain ranch properties worth $155,000. The Harveys by answer denied any wrongdoing on their part and alleged that the agreement as recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Fremont County truly and correctly represented the understanding and intention of the parties.

The matter was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, and the trial court found generally for Dr. Irvin and against the Harveys and accordingly entered a decree canceling the agreement. In support of its judgment the trial court made rather elaborate findings and conclusions, the gist of which was that the agreement resulted from fraud, deceit and concealment on the part of Leonard Harvey and that the agreement as recorded did not represent the intention of the parties and was moreover grossly inequitable. By writ of error the Harveys now seek reversal of this judgment.

The Harveys urge that the several findings and conclusions of the trial court, as well as the judgment therein, are totally unsupported by any competent or credible evidence. Hence our only task is to determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the judgment of the trial court. If there be such supporting evidence, the judgment under well-established rules must be affirmed even though there may well be other evidence to the contrary, since the trial court--and not this Court--is the fact-finding body.

We have carefully examined the rather lengthy reporter's transcript and conclude that there is evidence, much evidence in fact, to support the judgment of the trial court. Admittedly, there is evidence to the contrary, but such only served to create a controverted issue of fact, all of which is only typical grist for the factfinding mill.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful litigant in the trial court, as we must, there is evidence in the record to establish the following:

1. that Dr. Irvin shortly prior to December 1959 purchased two separate ranch properties situate in Fremont and Park counties, one lying north of the Arkansas River (which will hereinafter be referred to as the North Ranch) for $100,000 and the second lying south of the Arkansas River (which will hereinafter be referred to as the South Ranch) for $60,000;

2. that Dr. Irvin first met the two Harveys sometime in December 1959, when there was discussion between the parties looking toward the purchase or leasing by the Harveys of one or both ranch properties;

3. that these discussions culminated in a...