Krueger v. Zoch, 41815
| Decision Date | 12 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41815,41815 |
| Citation | 173 N.W.2d 18,285 Minn. 332 |
| Parties | Clarence C. KRUEGER, Appellant, v. Joseph ZOCH and James Zoch as guardian of Joseph Zoch, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where it is proved that defendant was over 80, hard of hearing, rambled in his conversation, and was placed under guardianship shortly after entering into a contract with plaintiff, evidence supports finding that defendant was incompetent and the contract he made with plaintiff is null and void.
2. Where it is proved plaintiff knew defendant was hard of hearing, rambled in his conversation, and was unable to care for himself, evidence supports finding that plaintiff had knowledge of defendant's incompetency.
Edward M. Cohen and Robert Ahl, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Buchmeier & Buchmeier, St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, MURPHY, PETERSON and FRANK T. GALLAGHER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ramsey County District Court.
This is an action brought by plaintiff, Clarence C. Krueger, against defendants, Joseph Zoch and James Zoch as guardian of Joseph Zoch, to specifically enforce an earnest money contract for the purchase of land or, in the alternative, for money damages. The contract was dated November 30, 1966, and was between plaintiff as purchaser and defendant Joseph Zoch as seller.
The case was tried before the court without a jury on January 16, 1968. The court found that Joseph was incompetent at the time he made the earnest money contract with plaintiff. It determined that this made the contract null and void and refused specific performance. Plaintiff makes this appeal.
The questions for consideration are (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that Joseph was incompetent, and (2) whether a contract of the incompetent may be avoided under the evidence presented.
Joseph was over 80 years of age in 1966. He lived alone on a farm that he owned in Little Canada, Minnesota. Because of his advancing age, he decided to sell his place. In June 1966 he first met plaintiff, who expressed interest in buying the farm. Joseph was asking $27,000, but because he received $4,500 for a sewer easement he volunteered to lower the price to.$23,500. The parties conducted negotiations for the sale of the farm from June to November 30, 1966, when the earnest money contract involved here was signed.
On December 22, 1966, guardianship proceedings were held in Ramsey County probate court and on January 9, 1967, Joseph was placed under guardianship, with his son, James, as guardian.
The evidence in the instant case established that, dating from before June 1966, Joseph was hard of hearing; that he rambled in his conversations and had trouble keeping to the subject under consideration; that his house was messy; that he was unable to care for himself; that during the guardianship proceedings he spoke loudly at improper times; that he trusted strangers rather than his own family; that he sold valuable antiques for next to nothing when approached by various dealers; and that he listed his house with two realtors at the same time. His son, James, testified that from his observations his father had been incompetent for the previous 5 years. A contractor who met Joseph a number of times and was also trying to buy his farm testified that he broke off negotiations because he thought Joseph was incapable of handling his own affairs. Plaintiff and his three witnesses all testified that they thought Joseph was competent to handle his own affairs, but none of them was well acquainted with him nor could they rebut the above-mentioned testimony. From the foregoing, the trial court concluded that defendant Joseph Zoch was incompetent at the time he negotiated and signed the contract with plaintiff.
1. In accordance with our well-settled rules we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and, since the findings of the trial court are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict, we will not reverse unless the findings are manifestly contrary to the evidence.
The standard for determining whether a person is mentally incapable is whether or not that person can fairly and reasonably understand the matter he is considering. Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524, 31 N.W.2d 439. A person is competent if he has the capacity or ability to understand to a reasonable extent the nature and effect of what he is doing. Rebne v. Rebne, 216 Minn. 379, 13 N.W.2d 18....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
718 Associates v. Banks
...existed at the time of the execution of the deed or contract controverted, it is sufficient to avoid the same.”)); Krueger v. Zoch, 285 Minn. 332, 173 N.W.2d 18, 20–21 (1969) (affirming a lower court's decision to void appellee's contract upon a finding of mental incompetence); Fleming v. C......
-
Beatty v. Republican Herald Pub. Co.
...in opposing urban renewal which amounted to a 'thrusting of his personality into the 'vortex' of an important public controversy.' 285 Minn. 302, 173 N.W.2d 18. As defendants point out, plaintiff's status as a public figure in Winona has not been lessened by his initiation of this lawsuit a......
-
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Schmidt
...375 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citing In re Estate of Nordorf, 364 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) and Krueger v. Zoch, 285 Minn. 332, 173 N.W.2d 18, 20 (1969)). Hence, the material facts in this case are facts which tend to prove or disprove whether Cora Schmidt had the ability t......
-
In re Estate of Zych
...contractual standard rather than testamentary standard to transfer of accounts from sole to joint ownership); see also Krueger v. Zoch, 173 N.W.2d 18, 20 (Minn. 1969). Because contracting requires a higher mental capacity than executing a will, Torgersen, 711 N.W.2d at 553-54, making a gift......