Jensen v. Phippen
| Decision Date | 21 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 44377. |
| Citation | 280 N.W. 528,225 Iowa 302 |
| Parties | JENSEN v. PHIPPEN et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Audubon County; Grover W. Brown, Judge.
Action in equity to set aside a deed on the ground that it had been procured through fraud and undue influence. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff has appealed.
Affirmed.
Graham & Graham, of Audubon, for appellant.
Charles S. White, of Audubon, for appellees.
On July 3, 1934, Christen Jensen Aaen deeded to his daughter Dagmar Phippen, appellee, a residence property in Exira, of the then value of $700 to $800. In the deed Aaen reserved to himself a life estate in the property. He died on July 15, 1936. The plaintiff, as his executor, seeks in this action to set aside the deed upon the ground that its execution was procured by the grantee through fraud and undue influence. The district court heard the case on the merits and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff has appealed.
The parties concede that if this deed has validity it is because it constituted an executed gift. As to any active perpetration of fraud, or any overt attempt to induce or influence this grantor to make the deed we find no testimony. There remains the issue of constructive fraud, and on the record there arise with reference thereto the queries whether the deed was a gift obtained by a person standing in a confidential or a fiduciary relation to the donor, and consequently presumably fraudulent and prima facie void, and whether, if such relationship existed, defendant has made such showing of facts that it is to be concluded that the presumption has been overcome. Samson v. Samson, 67 Iowa 253, 25 N.W. 233; Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 138 N.W. 873; Roller v. Roller, 201 Iowa 1077 203 N.W. 41.
The rule that relationship between a grantor and a grantee may be so intimate, confidential, and fiduciary that the burden may properly be placed upon the grantee, to show the bona fides of a transaction of this character, is, of necessity, applied according to the peculiar circumstances of the particular case where the question arises. Osborn v. Fry, 202 Iowa 129, 209 N.W. 303. Mere blood relationship does not of itself create the confidential relationship calling for the application of this rule. Kramer v. Leinbaugh, 219 Iowa 604, 259 N.W. 20; Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 138 N.W. 873. And while the phrases " fiduciary relations" and " confidential relations" are frequently used as convertible terms, strictly they are of differing significance. Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 138 N.W. 873.
As to whether fiduciary relations existed between this grantor and grantee, it does not appear that the grantee had transacted or attended to or advised concerning any of grantor's business or property, nor does it appear that the grantee in any way had the handling or control of any of his property or business affairs. So the record does not warrant a holding that the grantee stood in a fiduciary relationship in the sense of being a trustee of or trusted adviser concerning the grantor's property and affairs.
As to there having been a confidential relation not strictly fiducial, but nevertheless in some cases recognized as within the rule mentioned, as for instance when there is consanguinity, coupled with dependence for personal care and attention and for the amenities and necessities of life, the parent's life being on the wane, the child having become the dominant personage in the relationship and the parent the dependent one, trusting himself and his interests to the child's advice and guidance, the evidence in this case covers a considerable period of time. In August 1923 Aaen and his wife deeded to this daughter Dagmar, and Thomas her husband, the property that is in controversy. The then consideration of $2500 was never paid excepting the sum of $200 paid when the deed was executed. The Phippens expended $156 for betterments and repairs. They have lived in the property continuously, following this conveyance in 1923 down to the time of the trial. On November 2, 1929, the Phippens relinquished the place and conveyed it back to Aaen. During this period of ownership they were unable to keep the taxes paid, Aaen assisting by paying a portion. Mrs. Aaen also loaned money for that purpose, to the Phippens, which they repaid her. The house on the premises in dispute is one of eight rooms. From 1924 or 1925 until Mrs. Aaen died in March 1930, the Aaens as well as the Phippens lived in this house, under mutual arrangements not...
To continue reading
Request your trial