Lintner's Estate v. Meier
| Decision Date | 01 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 73 N.W.2d 205,344 Mich. 119 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Amina LINTNER, Deceased, by Leo L. Linck, Administrator, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Millie MEIER, Defendant-Appeilee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Harold H. Smedley, Leo L. Linck, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hinds & Sikkenga, Shelby, Street & Sorensen, Muskegon, for defendant-appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Amina Lintner, the alleged grantor (whom we will hereafter describe as the grantor) was a widow. She was 81 years of age at the time of her death, 'quite an accurate lady.' She had a pension of $48 per month, which she supplemented from time to time by the manufacture and sale of paper flowers, and, occasionally, of crochet work. She lived alone. She had an adopted daughter, living in Chicago, whom she saw at intervals. There is some conflict in the record about the frequency of those visits. The grantor was under the impression that 'her daughter hadn't been to see her for 14 years, until the summer she died.' The daughter's testimony, however, was that since her marriage, 10 years back, she had returned home 4 or 5 times. The number is unimportant. We mention it for the light it may cast on the grantor's intentions and acts. 'She (the grantor) said she wasn't leaving anything to her because her daughter hadn't visited her--and the neighbors had taken care of her for many years.' This was the nextdoor neighbor speaking, Mrs. Hazel Norton.
The grantee involved is Mrs. Millie Meier. She is also the defendant-appellee in this case. She saw a good deal of the grantor over a period of some 10 years before the latter's death. They visited back and forth. Mrs. Meier occasionally gave her small presents, groceries, once a blanket. From time to time they prayed together. The days shortened. Mrs. Lintner had her friend place $800 in cash in an envelope which was pasted to the back of the radio in the Lintner home. It was to be for her funeral expenses. She died on September 20, 1953. Her body was discovered by one of the neighbors who had gone over to see her. The coroner was called, and certain friends, including Mrs. Meier. When the coroner asked about the belongings of the deceased, Mrs. Meier removed the above described envelope from its place of concealment and handed it to him. In the envelope was found $800 and the deed in question. This case turns on how it came to be there. If it had been effectively delivered prior to death the property belongs to the grantee. If not, to the estate. We turn to the circumstances surrounding the execution and claimed delivery of the deed.
In the summer of 1951 the grantor requested a neighbor lady to write the legal description of the property involved in a deed form. The grantor dictated from something, the witness did not know what. 'She gave as a reason that she wanted me to write, that she thought I could write plain.' Later that summer (in August) Mrs. Teichthesen, who was head book-keeper for a manufacturing concern, and a notary public, was called by her husband, who is Mrs. Meier's half brother. She was to bring her seal home because after supper she was to notarize a document for someone. That evening Mrs. Meier called and took her out to the Lintner home, where Mrs. Lintner produced the deed form, with the description written plain upon it, and asked Mrs. Teichthesen to 'make it out to Mrs. Meier.' She did so, but adds: 'I did not notarize the deed in Mrs. Lintner's home, for the reason that there were no witnesses at the home.' Accordingly they left, went to Mrs. Meier's home to pick up her husband, and proceeded together to the Teichthesen home. Here the deed was signed, with Mrs. Teichthesen and Mr. Meier as witnesses, and notarized with some little formality. The record states:
'A. Well, I asked Mrs. Lintner to raise her right hand and asked her if it was her free act and deed and she said, 'Yes'.
'Q. Then after that did you notarize? A. Right.
'Q. Now the deed was witnessed and notarized in that fashion, and would you describe to the judge, in your own words, what happened next? A. Well, Mrs. Lintner had the deed and she handed it to Mrs. Meier and a dollar was given to Mrs. Meier in consideration for this deed.
'The Court: To Mrs. Meier? A. That is right. Mrs. Meier gave Mrs. Lintner a dollar in consideration of this deed. And at that time she, Mrs. Lintner, laughed about it because she said that Mrs. Meier had given her much more than that.
'Q. And then what next did Mrs. Lintner say or do? A. Well, Mrs. Lintner, after it was notarized and she had given it to Mrs. Meier, she said,
Mrs. Teichthesen saw the deed in the grantee's purse about a week later, as did her husband. After Mrs. Lintner's death, however, approximately 2 years later, the deed was found with her effects in the envelope, as above described.
It is not necessary that we set forth the testimony of the neighbors. Fairly indicative of its general tenor is that of Mr. Blaine Norton who talked with the grantor at his home shortly before her death. On this occasion, he says,
It is the position of the administrator, warmly urged upon us, that all of the above 'is nothing less than a family conspiracy to obtain Mrs. Lintner's property.' It is said that the deed was intended to take effect only upon Mrs. Lintner's death, was testamentary in character, and that there was no delivery thereof prior to the grantor's death. Various words and circumstances are argued as indicative thereof. We have considered them all.
The law applicable to this case may be very simply stated, although the application of the facts thereto is more complex. Whether there has been a delivery of a deed now depends upon the intention of the grantor. It is shown by his words and actions and by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. As we said in Hynes v. Halstead, 282 Mich. 627, 276 N.W. 578, 579:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim v. Combs (In re Combs)
...[D]efendants’ [sic] in April 2012." (Docket # 30 at pdf p. 5). In support of this assertion the Defendants cite Estate of Lintner v. Meier , 344 Mich. 119, 73 N.W.2d 205 (1955). However, that case addressed only the issue of what constitutes "delivery" of a deed. It did not address the ques......
- People v. Medcoff
-
Resh v. Fox
...the evidence the grantor had no intention of passing a present title. The cases relied upon by appellant, including Lintner Estate v. Meier, 344 Mich. 119, 73 N.W.2d 205, and Corkins v. Corkins, 358 Mich. 69s, 101 N.W.2d 362, were cases in which the trial court found as a matter of fact the......
-
Nelson v. Nelson, 12811
...Parceluk v. Knudtson, 139 N.W.2d 864 (N.D., 1966); Hilliard v. Hilliard, 240 Iowa 1394, 39 N.W.2d 624 (1949); Estate of Lintner v. Meier, 344 Mich. 119, 73 N.W.2d 205 (1955); McMillen v. Chamberland, 71 N.D. 65, 298 N.W. 767 (1941). The delivery of a deed to one of the grantees named therei......