Holtschneider v. Stratman
| Citation | 655 S.W.2d 47 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 44139,44139 |
| Parties | David HOLTSCHNEIDER, Elizabeth Holtschneider Bexten, and Stephen Bexten, her husband, James Holtschneider and Christine Holtschneider Reichel, Respondents, v. Judith Holtschneider Luebbert STRATMAN and Joseph F. Luebbert, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Johnny K. Richardson, David Brydon, Hawkins, Brydon & Swearengen, Jefferson City, for appellants.
David A. Schwartze, Vienna, for respondents.
Appellant Judith Stratman's brothers and sisters (and brother-in-law) brought this action to cancel two deeds through which Judith and her now ex-husband (hereafter defendants) acquired plaintiffs' undivided interests in eighty acres of what used to be the family's two hundred acre farm in Osage County, Missouri. All plaintiffs except David Holtschneider, whose claim was held barred by the running of the period of limitations, prevailed on their claim that defendants fraudulently obtained the deeds through "misrepresentation and deceit ... while defendants were in a confidential relationship with plaintiffs." David Holtschneider does not appeal from the judgment against him, so to that extent we affirm it. As for the remaining plaintiffs, we conclude the evidence does not show the confidential relationship pled, and fails to establish an essential element of fraud. The judgment for the remaining plaintiffs is reversed.
The eighty-acre tract for which the parties contend is one of three tracts that comprised the family farm. The parties originally acquired their interests in it when the Holtschneiders' parents were divorced in 1966. As part of their property settlement, the parents conveyed by quitclaim deed an equal undivided interest in the farm's entire two hundred acres to each of their six children--plaintiffs David, Elizabeth, James and Christine; defendant Judith; and George, who died intestate in 1970 at the age of twenty. By Fall of 1969 defendants had married and with the family's approval had constructed a home on the eighty-acre parcel. Then the deeds appeared.
One of the deeds, styled a Guardian's Deed, was executed in October, 1972, by the Holtschneider children's mother. It was the culmination of guardianship proceedings initiated by mother late in 1968 through which she sought the power to convey to defendants at least some interest in the eighty-acre tract then held by her minor children, Christine and George. The deed, drawn by mother's attorney, describes the estate conveyed to defendants as Christine's "[o]ne fifth ( 1/5) [sic] interest in and to: Eighty acres north half northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 42, Range 9 west, Osage County, Missouri."
The other is a quitclaim deed to defendants executed by David, Elizabeth (and her husband) and James in May, 1972. The habendum clause describes the estate conveyed as all the grantors' interests in "Eighty (80) acres, the north half of the northeast quarter of Section 16, Township 42 north, Range 9 west."
The gist of the fraud alleged is this: Plaintiffs claim they acquiesced to Judith's insistence following her marriage that her home and her theretofore undivided interest in the eighty-acre tract be secured by deed. Hence the guardianship proceedings to conclude the minor children's interest therein. When the deeds were finally ready, Judith represented to her brothers and sisters and to her mother acting on Christine's behalf that the deeds conveyed to defendants only Judith's one-sixth interest in the eighty acres, when in fact the deeds conveyed the grantors' interests therein. And that in reliance on Judith's misrepresentations, her mother and siblings signed the deeds without reading them, thus conveying to defendants the entire eighty acres.
It is worth noting all plaintiffs and the mother conceded they would have known the effect of their deeds had they read them. (The basis for barring David's claim was his admission he read the quitclaim deed later the same day he signed it, and knew then it conveyed his interests in all eighty acres and not just in Judith's fourteen). And to be true to the record, we should also note that substantial other evidence contradicts plaintiffs' version of their transactions with defendants. No matter: We adhere to the rule that in bench-tried cases like this one where no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed, we accept as true the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and disregard the contradictory evidence, S.G. Adams Printing v. Central Hardware Co., 572 S.W.2d 625, 628 (Mo.App.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petrol Properties v. Stewart Title Co.
...thereon; and (9) injury. Id. Each of these elements is essential and must be proven as a prerequisite to relief. Holtschneider v. Stratman 655 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Mo.App. E.D.1983). Failure to establish any one of the nine elements is fatal to recovery. Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Mo......
-
Hackmann v. Sommerfor Development Corp., 51818
...we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregard the contrary evidence. Holdschneider v. Stratmen, 655 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Mo.App.1983). We have done so. If the denial of the mechanic's lien can be upheld on any reasonable theory supported by the eviden......
-
Estate of Brown v. Brown, 14543
...favorable to the result reached and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and disregard the contradictory evidence. Holtschneider v. Stratman, 655 S.W.2d 47 (Mo.App.1983). It was not necessary to show by an eyewitness testamentary incapacity at the moment of the execution of the deed. Eviden......
-
Spartan Carpet Distributors, Inc. v. Bailey
...a light most favorable to the judgment, accepting as true all evidence and inferences in support of the judgment. Holtschneider v. Stratman, 655 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Mo.App.1983). From the evidence the trial court could have found that buyer's agreement to pay seller the amount owing on the accou......