Hill v. Victora
| Decision Date | 22 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 30975.,30975. |
| Citation | 180 Iowa 417,161 N.W. 72 |
| Parties | HILL v. VICTORA (VICTORA ET AL., INTERVENERS). VICTORA ET AL. v. VICTORA ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Madison County; W. H. Fahey, Judge.
These proceedings are somewhat complicated, and the issues are involved. The first is an action by the guardian of Barbara Victora to set aside a decree in the case of Barbara Victora v. Ignatz Victora et al., and also a decree in the case of Fred Victora and Carl Victora v. Ignatz Victora and Barbara Victora, and also to set aside the contracts on which said actions were based, because of fraud practiced in obtaining the same and for other reasons. The first decree sought to be set aside was in an action for a divorce, in which Barbara Victora was plaintiff, and also asked for the protection of her dower interests in certain lands formerly owned by her husband, Ignatz Victora, and that a contract and deed made between the husband and his sons, Carl and Fred Victora, be set aside. The second was an action brought by the sons, Carl and Fred, against Ignatz and his wife, Barbara, to re-establish a deed of the lands in controversy, made to the said sons; the original deeds, or one of them, having been destroyed at the instance of a brother of Barbara Victora. All these actions were consolidated and tried together, resulting in a decree setting aside the decrees entered in the original cases, establishing and confirming Barbara Victora's dower interest and distributive share in the real estate, and setting aside the deeds executed by Ignatz and Barbara Victora to John, Carl, and Fred Victora. The appeal is from this latter decree. Reversed and remanded.F. T. Van Liew, of Des Moines, and W. S. Cooper, of Winterset, for appellants.
C. W. Lyon, of Des Moines, A. W. & Phil. R. Wilkinson, of Winterset, and J. W. Rhode, of Earlham, for appellees.
Barbara Victora commenced an action for divorce against her husband, Ignatz, December 5, 1910, based upon cruel and inhuman treatment. Thereafter, and about September 11, 1911, she filed a supplemental petition making Fred, Carl, and John Victora, sons of Ignatz, and her stepchildren, parties defendant, in which she claimed that these sons, with their father, entered into a fraudulent conspiracy to defraud the wife out of her inheritable interest in her husband's property, and that, pursuant thereto, John Victora commenced an action against his father to quiet title to certain lands, the title to which then stood in the father's name; that the father appeared to said action and filed an answer admitting that title should be quieted in the plaintiff therein; that Carl and Fred Victora commenced another action against plaintiff and their father to quiet title to certain real estate in Madison county, to which the father appeared and practically admitted the allegations of the petition, and thereafter John Victora commenced an action against both Ignatz and Barbara Victora, claiming that they owed him the sum of $7,000 for which he asked judgment, to which action Ignatz appeared and filed an answer, admitting the indebtedness. Barbara appeared and filed answer.
After these actions were commenced, it is claimed, with fraudulent motive and purposes, it is averred that Ignatz, with his three sons, got together, induced Barbara to go to Des Moines with them, and, in the absence of her attorney, fraudulently and corruptly induced Barbara to sign a pretended agreement of settlement which in effect deprived her of all rights in and to her husband's property.
It is claimed that Barbara could not understand the English language, did not know what was in the agreement of settlement, but believed that it protected her rights because the parties represented to her that it would, and that they further stated that unless she signed the agreement the lawyers would get all the property, and leave them all without anything. A subsequent stipulation was entered in January of the year 1912. This stipulation was carried into a decree, and it provided for the confirmation of a deed made by Ignatz and his wife to John Victora, for certain lands in Adair county; and for the confirmation of another deed theretofore made by Ignatz Victora and his wife, to Carl and Fred Victora, for certain lands in Madison county, and for the conveyance by Ignatz to his wife, Barbara, of a house and lot in Earlham; the grantee therein to immediately reconvey the same to Ignatz's six children, reserving, however, to the grantor, Barbara, a life estate in said house and lot. The decree entered on the stipulation also provided that, if Barbara survived her husband, John, Carl, and Fred Victora should pay to Barbara the sum of $1,000. It was provided in the deeds which were confirmed that John, the grantee in the first one, should pay to Ignatz and Barbara during the lives of either of them the sum of $180 annually, and that Carl and Fred should pay to Ignatz and Barbara, or the survivor, $310.50 annually thereafter. These payments were to commence on December 1, 1911. Provision was also made for the payment of Barbara's attorney fees. It was also provided, in effect, that the divorce proceedings against Ignatz should be dismissed, that they should live together thereafter, and that Barbara should have no interest in the real estate conveyed, save the life estate in the Earlham property and perhaps a lien upon the lands for the annuities provided in the deeds. This decree was entered February 6, 1912, and the divorce action was subsequently dismissed. Barbara Victora seems to have been represented by counsel at the time this consent decree was entered, and their fees were provided for in this decree. The decree was entered in a case entitled Barbara Victora, Plaintiff, v. Ignatz Victora, Defendant; John Victora, Carl Victora, and Fred Victora, Defendants and Interveners.
Before the commencement of the divorce suit, and on November 14, 1910, Carl and Fred Victora commenced an action against Ignatz and Barbara Victora, in the Madison county district court, to re-establish a deed made by Ignatz and his wife, Barbara Victora, to them on or about September 9, 1910, covering certain lands in Madison county, which deed, it is claimed, after delivery in escrow, was wrongfully obtained by Ignatz and his wife from the depository some two weeks after its delivery, and destroyed by them. It is also averred that by false and fraudulent representations they induced Carl Victora to believe that the deed had no force and effect. Carl and Fred asked that this deed be re-established, alleging that it was based upon a sufficient consideration and was wrongfully and fraudulently destroyed. Defendant Ignatz appeared in that action by attorney, and filed an answer practically admitting the allegations of the petition, and it is this answer which is referred to in the action commenced by Barbara. Barbara appeared September 8, 1911, and filed an answer and cross-petition, in which she pleaded that the original deed was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation regarding the nature and object of the same, and she denied all other allegations of the petition. She also filed a cross-petition in which she pleaded her marriage to Ignatz in the year 1890, possessed of lands in Madison and Adair counties, worth $35,000; and that thereafter the plaintiffs in the action, by fraud and misrepresentation, secured the execution of the deed to them, and she asked that the deed be set aside. In a reply to this cross-petition, it was alleged that, since the filing of Barbara's answer and cross-petition, Ignatz Victora had died, and Barbara had been adjudged of unsound mind. They also denied the allegations of the cross-petition, and further pleaded the decree entered pursuant to the stipulation in the original divorce proceeding, confirming the deed as hereinbefore recited.
Under these issues, a decree was entered, in the action commenced by Carl and Fred, confirming their title to the Madison county land, subject to the liens, etc., referred to in the decree in the original divorce case. Thereafter and on April 20, 1914, Harry Hill, as guardian for Barbara Victora, who had been adjudged of unsound mind, filed a petition in the case brought originally by Carl and Fred Victora against Ignatz and his wife, to set aside the decree therein, and also the decree in the case brought by Barbara v. Ignatz Victora, and John, Fred, and Carl Victora, and the deeds referred to therein, because each and all were obtained by fraud. Thereafter he filed an amended and substituted petition to vacate and set aside the judgment and decree in the action brought by the sons against their parents, and the deeds therein referred to for fraud, etc., and on the same day he filed a like petition in the action brought by Barbara Victora against her husband and his sons; this, too, being based on fraud and misrepresentation. A motion was also filed to set aside the order of dismissal of the original divorce action. Issue was taken upon these petitions and the motion, and a trial had to the court, all of the actions being consolidated and tried together; and a decree was finally entered granting the petition to set aside and vacate the judgments, and the deeds referred to therein to John and to Fred and Carl Victora were set aside, and Barbara's dower interest or distributive share in all of the real estate was established and confirmed, and she was given a one-third interest in all the property including the house and lot in Earlham. John, Carl, and Fred Victora appeal.
It has seemed necessary to set out these voluminous pleadings and proceedings in order that the matters at issue may be better understood.
[1] As has been observed, Ignatz Victora is now dead, and, if he died seised of any property, his widow is entitled to her distributive share therein. The widow is now under guardianship, having been adjudged insane in February, 1914, and she...
To continue reading
Request your trial