Hermanson v. Seppala

• Decision Date: 26 May 1926
• Citation: 255 Mass. 607
• Parties: ULRIKA J. HERMANSON v. SAMUEL SEPPALA.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

255 Mass. 607

ULRIKA J. HERMANSON v. SAMUEL SEPPALA.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

May 26, 1926

October 19, 1925.

Present: BRALEYCROSBY, CARROLL, & SANDERSON, JJ.

Equity Jurisdiction, To relieve from fraud, To avoid deed of plaintiff when insane, Plaintiff's clean hands.Insane Person.Guardian, Ad litem.Equity Pleading and Practice Bill, Demurrer.

A bill in equity contained allegations that the plaintiff, a woman, had owned certain real estate which had been conveyed to her by her husband; that, four years after such conveyance and after her husband had died, the defendant, with intention to deceive falsely represented to the plaintiff that the real estate was subject to the administration of her husband's estate and would have to be taken away from the plaintiff and her children and sold, but that this might be avoided if the plaintiff would convey the premises to the defendant, and that he would execute an agreement to reconvey the premises to her at such time as she might desire; that the defendant knew the statements to be false; that the plaintiff believing them to be true, relied upon them, and conveyed the property to the defendant for no consideration except his agreement to assume a mortgage on the premises; that the defendant executed no agreement to reconvey; that the plaintiff was insane at the time of executing the deed and not of sufficient mental capacity to understand her act and its consequences; that the defendant had refused to account for rents which he had collected, and threatened to evict the plaintiff.

The prayers of the bill were for an injunction restraining such eviction, for an accounting, and for a cancellation of the deed or an order that a proper consideration for the deed be paid to the plaintiff.

The defendant demurred.The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff appealed.Held, that

(1) The alleged false representations could be found to relate to a question of fact, namely, the right or title of the plaintiff to the real estate;

(2)The bill might be maintained to set aside the deed as that of an insane person;

(3) It could not be ruled as a matter of law on the allegations of the bill that the remedy at law was adequate and complete;

(4)The bill was not multifarious in that it contained inconsistent alternative prayers;

(5) A contention, that the plaintiff could not maintain the bill because the conveyance was made to deprive the husband's heirs of any rights they might have in the property, was without merit, no purpose to defraud the heirs being alleged and proof of such purpose not being a necessary part of the plaintiff's case;

(6) The decree sustaining the demurrer was reversed and the demurrer was overruled.

In overruling the demurrer in the suit above described, it was stated that the matter was considered on its merits because it nowhere was alleged that the plaintiff continued to be insane at the time when the bill was brought; but that, if it should appear that she was now insane, no further proceedings should be had in the case until a guardian ad litem was appointed.

BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on May 1, 1924, and afterwards amended, and described in the opinion.

The defendant demurred on the grounds of want of equity, that the plaintiff had an adequate and complete remedy at law, the statute of frauds, that the bill did not contain as one of the essential elements of the fraud an allegation of misstatements of fact, and that the bill was multifarious in that it sought to obtain rescission on the ground of fraud, rescission on the ground of insanity, and specific performance of an agreement to reconvey.The demurrer was heard by Morton, J., by whose order there was entered a final decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.The plaintiff appealed.

The case was submitted on briefs.J.G. Annala, for the plaintiff.

G.P. Davis, for the defendant.

SANDERSON, J.Before August 16, 1919, the plaintiff owned certain real estate in Gloucester which was conveyed to her in 1915 by her then husband, Matty A. Williams, now deceased.The bill of complaint alleges that the defendant, with intention to deceive, falsely represented to the plaintiff that the real estate was subject to the administration of her husband's estate and would have to be taken away from the plaintiff and her children and sold, but that this might be avoided if the plaintiff would convey the premises to the defendant, and that he would execute an agreement to reconvey the premises to her at such time as she might desire; that the defendant knew the statements to be false; that the plaintiff believing them to be true, relied upon them, and conveyed the property, worth $6,000, to the defendant for no consideration except his agreement to assume a mortgage on the premises for $1,850; and that the defendant executed no agreement to reconvey.The bill of complaint also alleges that the plaintiff was insane at the time of executing the deed and not of sufficient mental capacity to understand her act and its consequences; that the defendant and plaintiff have occupied part of the property; that the defendant has collected rents from other tenants and has neglected to account for the amounts received, and has threatened to evict the plaintiff from the premises.The prayers are for an order enjoining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff, for an accounting, for cancellation of...