Lawrence v. Prosser

• Decision Date: 15 August 1917
• Docket Number: No. 42/187.,42/187.
• Citation: 88 N.J.Eq. 43,101 A. 1040
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. PROSSER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

101 A. 1040

88 N.J.Eq. 43

LAWRENCE

v. PROSSER et al.

No. 42/187.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Aug. 15, 1917.

Suit by Luman W. Lawrence against Judson C. Prosser, executor of Mrs. Dean, and others. Decision reserved.

Scott German and Frank E. Bradner, both of Newark, for complainant. Hugh B. Reed and Theodore D. Gottlieb, both of Newark, for defendant Prosser. Edward Q. Keasbey, of Newark, for town of Bucksport.

STEVENS, V. C. The complainant seeks to have a transfer of an interest in property, made by him to his aunt, Mrs. Dean, annulled, on the ground of fraud. In April, 1911, Luman Warren, a resident of Bucksport, Me., and an uncle of complainant, died intestate, leaving an estate, consisting of personalty and realty, valued at about $00,000. His heirs and next of kin were a sister, Mrs. Dean, and three nephews, John, Stevens, and Luman Lawrence. Mrs. Dean was entitled to one-half of his estate, and his three nephews, each, to one-sixth.

The complainant, Luman, who is about 55 years old, had up to March, 1905, lived with his brother John near Boston, but, as he says, being out of work, he, at his aunt's invitation, came to live with her in Newark. The family then consisted of Mr. Dean, who was engaged in the business of keeping a restaurant, and of Mrs. Dean. They had no servant, and Luman, from the time he went there, took the place of one. He did everything that a maid of all work would ordinarily have done. His aunt's health was poor, and she herself could do but little. He lived with her, in this way, up to the time of her death in June, 1916. Mr. Dean predeceased his wife by a few months. She is thus described by Rev. Dr. Waters:

She was a "domineering shrew. She impressed me as a woman in whom there was a struggle going on of unusual strength between the good and the evil in her. At 'times she was very quiet and of a very gracious personality, and other times she was extremely hard. On one occasion, she ordered Luman out of my presence and her presence, as I don't think I would order a dog away from my premises. * * * There is an old England term that says she was very tight. She had an obsession, I think, as to money affairs, * * * it was her inordinate—well—greed, if I may so call it, that was the controlling impulse in the woman's life, with a certain intense hatred which she exhibited, which she either felt or assumed to feel, toward her relatives."

Of Luman he says that:

He "always impressed me as extremely docile, obedient; as a person who had subordinated his own mind and will to the direction and control of Mrs. Dean."

This description of the two principal characters in the case is borne out by the evidence of the other witnesses. Shortly after the death of Luman Warren, the uncle, at Bucksport, Mrs. Dean and her nephew went there and conferred with Mr. Smith, an attorney, who subsequently became the administrator. A dispute at once arose, as to the administration, between Mrs. Dean and her Massachusetts nephews, which produced a bitter feeling between them. Mrs. Dean wanted what she regarded as a controlling interest in the estate, and proposed to Luman that he assign his one-sixth interest to her. She did this for two reasons: First, to secure control; and, second, to protect Luman against his brothers, who, as she thought, rightly or wrongly, would, if they had the opportunity, play upon Luman's easy-going disposition and strip him of his property. Mr. Smith, who is an intelligent and disinterested witness says:

"I can recall that he [Luman] denounced his brothers in unmeasured terms, and Mrs. Dean was equally as bitter against them as Luman was at the time. * * * She [Mrs. Dean] stated that she was afraid that if his brothers, Stevens and John, got his share of the Luman Warren estate into their hands, they would turn him out—cast him adrift upon the world. * * * She stated to me [his evidence shows that the statement was made in Luman's hearing and was approved by Luman] that he was possessed of certain infirmities and that his brothers had turned him out, and he went on there [to Newark], and she took him in and made a home for him, provided for him, and intended to provide for him as long as he lived, and make ample provision for him in her will."

Mr. Smith drew a deed from Luman to his aunt, by which he conveyed to her his undivided sixth interest in the land and personal estate derived from his uncle. This deed was executed at Newark on August 2, 1911. I have no doubt whatever, notwithstanding Luman's present denial, that he understood the purport and object of it, and that he agreed to it, on the faith of his aunt's promise to "provide for him at her home as long as he lived," and amply to provide for him by her will "after she was dead and gone." Mr. Smith's statement of the bargain is corroborated by Mrs. Dean's letters and acts, by witnesses in the best position to remember, and, in the end, by Luman himself.

On May 2, 1913, she and Luman executed mutual wills. He gave his property to her, and she, by a codicil to a former will, after giving her husband (who, as I have said, predeceased her) a life interest, devised and bequeathed her estate to Dr. George W. Clement, of Boston, in trust to invest and pay the income periodically to Luman during his natural life and at his death to purchase the necessary land and erect thereon a suitable building to be used as a public hall for the inhabitants of Bucksport. Shortly before, under date of April 20, 1913, she had written to Dr. Clement, telling him that words could not express her gratitude toward him for expressing his willingness to act— "when the time comes; for it is my duty to provide and protect my sister's son. * * * Luman's inheritance from his uncle will be in the neighborhood of $14,000." (She apparently overrates the amount, the evidence indicating that it is from $10,000 to $12,000.) "Luman has sold to me all his claims, and I shall in return give him all my property during his life, under guardianship, that he will be cared for and not a prey to scheming friends."

This letter appears to me to be conclusive evidence that Mrs. Dean did not regard the transfer in the light of a gift, but as the consideration for a binding promise on her part. To Rev. Dr. Waters she spoke in the same strain:

"She informed me that she and Luman had exchanged wills; Luman had willed his property to her, and she hers to him; that it was her purpose to see that her property reverted to Luman when she passed away, subject to restrictions. She did not think that he was as capable as he might be, on account of his deafness or inexperience, to take charge of the property, and she was going to will it so that he would have the use of it subject to restrictions." "She was afraid some sharp fellows might get the property away from Luman, and she wanted him to have the benefit of it during his life."

On February 29, 1916, she apparently, from mere caprice, revoked her disposition in Luman's favor, and gave him, instead, a yearly income of $600 during his life. Luman, when cross-examined at the close of the case, after denying that the deed of August 2, 1911, was read to him before he signed it, testifies as follows:

"Q. But you knew, when you signed it, that you had signed a deed? A. Well, I knew, as you might say, that it was a paper for that purpose. * * * My aunt told me it was to sign that paper to hurry up the sale of the property, and that is all that I know. Q. She [Mrs. Dean] said it was a deed, didn't she? A. A deed, or a paper; whatever you might call it. Q. And you knew as a matter of fact it was a deed? A, I wouldn't say as a matter of fact that I knew it was a deed; but I knew she said it was a paper where that would be done to hurry up the settlement of the property I didn't know that I was throwing my stuff away. * * * Q. You never questioned the validity of that act until you filed your bill? [August 22, 1916.] A. Never did question it; didn't know anything about it. * * * Q. Didn't you know as a matter of fact that your aunt had provided for you after her death? A, Why—after her death—why, yes, I saw what it said in the will. That is all I see. All I knew. Q. And was that satisfactory to you? A. Good God! No; it wasn't. Q. When did this dissatisfaction on your part first manifest itself? A. When did it? Why the first time I knew it was said in the will. [The witness is here...