Mann v. Staatz
| Decision Date | 23 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35532. |
| Citation | 133 P.2d 103,156 Kan. 275 |
| Parties | MANN v. STAATZ. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Appellate courts do not determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight of testimony given in explanation of apparently inconsistent statements of the same witness, or the particular testimony upon which a finding is based where it might be based on several parts of the testimony of the same witness.
On appeal from findings of fact, the Supreme Court is concerned only with evidence tending or reasonably tending to support the findings made, and not with evidence tending to disturb the findings or contrary thereto.
Supreme Court was not authorized to declare that finding that grantor was incompetent at time of execution of deed to defendants was not supported by substantial testimony on ground that witnesses testifying that grantor was incompetent had according to their testimony, participated in business affairs with grantor indicating that they must have believed that grantor was competent to transact her own business.
Evidence supported finding that grantor on date that deed was executed was incompetent to transact business, justifying decree setting aside deed.
Where grantor was incompetent to make conveyance to defendants, the instrument was without legal effect, and defendants' alleged undue influence in obtaining the deed or lack of adequate consideration therefor was immaterial.
1. Appellate courts do not determine (a) the credibility of witnesses, (b) the weight of testimony given in explanation of apparently inconsistent statements of the same witness or (c) the particular testimony upon which a finding is based where it might be based on several parts of the testimony of the same witness.
2. On appeal from findings of fact, this court is concerned only with evidence which supports or reasonably tends to support the findings made and not with evidence which tends to disturb them or is contrary thereto.
3. The record in an action to set aside a deed on the ground of incompetency of the grantor, undue influence by the grantee and inadequate consideration, examined, considered and held (a) The finding that on the date the deed was executed the grantor was of feeble mind to such an extent that she was incompetent to transact business and to execute the deed in question, was amply supported by substantial testimony, (b) in view of the finding and testimony, narrated in the opinion, with respect to the extent of the grantor's incompetency at the time the deed was executed, the further findings of influence by the grantee and of inadequate consideration are not controlling.
Appeal from District Court, Dickinson County; Cassius M. Clark Judge.
Action by C. J. Mann, as guardian of the estate of Anna S. Staatz an incompetent person, against Albert H. Staatz and his wife to set aside a deed executed by the incompetent to defendants. From an order overruling defendants' motion to set aside findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. While the appeal was pending, the incompetent died, and C. J. Mann was appointed administrator of her estate and was substituted for the guardian as appellee.
Robert Stone, of Topeka (John H. Lehman, of Abilene, and James A. McClure, Robert L. Webb, Beryl R. Johnson, and Ralph W. Oman, all of Topeka, on the brief), for appellants.
Matt Guilfoyle, of Abilene (Thornton D. Scott, of Abilene, on the brief), for appellee.
This was an action to set aside a warranty deed on the ground of incompetency of the grantor, undue influence by the grantee and want of adequate consideration. Plaintiff prevailed and defendants, the grantee in the deed, and his wife, appeal.
The appeal is from the order overruling appellants' motion to set aside findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The deed was executed by Anna S. Staatz, an aged mother, to her youngest son, Albert H. Staatz, Jr., on January 4, 1939. Shortly thereafter proceedings were commenced by certain children of Anna S. Staatz, to have the mother declared incompetent. She was so declared and that adjudication was affirmed on appeal to the same district court in which the instant action was later instituted. After the adjudication of incompetency, C. J. Mann was appointed guardian of the estate of Anna S. Staatz, an incompetent person. The grantee in the deed appealed to this court from the judgment which declared Anna S. Staatz to be an incompetent, but that appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the instant action was filed by the guardian to set aside the deed upon the grounds previously stated. The deed was set aside and this appeal followed. While the appeal was pending, Anna S. Staatz died. C. J. Mann was appointed administrator of her estate, and the administrator was substituted for the guardian as appellee in this court.
In the instant case the district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which were:
"Findings of Fact.
1. "Anna S. Staatz, whose guardian is the plaintiff in this action, was born in Germany in 1850. She was married in the seventies, and lived with her husband until about fifteen years ago. To this union were born eight children, seven of whom are living.
2. "Anna S. Staatz acquired title to three hundred and twenty acres of land in Dickinson County, Kansas, of the present value of $10,000.00, and of a house and lot in Woodbine, of the value of $600.00, which are described in the petition filed in this action.
3. "On January 4, 1939, Anna S. Staatz executed to her son Albert H. Staatz, Jr., a warranty deed conveying to him the above described property, subject to a mortgage of $3000.00 on the farm land, which was all of the property she had excepting $200.00 in the bank, against which she authorized Albert to write checks.
4. "On the 29th day of November, 1939, Anna S. Staatz was adjudged an incompetent person by the above named court in an appeal from the Probate Court of said county, and C. J. Mann was appointed guardian of her estate.
5. "Albert H. Staatz, Jr., is the son of Anna S. Staatz, and Mabel Staatz is his wife.
6. "At the time of the execution of said deed, Anna S. Staatz was about ninety years of age. She and her husband had lived upon the farm in question for many years, and until they purchased the house and lot in question in Woodbine, Kansas, to which they moved about twenty-five years ago.
7. "Anna S. Staatz in the past several years had severe sick spells. She had become childish and forgetful, and at a family conference about 1935 or 1936, it was decided to have a guardian appointed for her, and Albert and his elder brother Julius, went to the Probate Court in Abilene for that purpose, but such proceedings were not completed.
8. "Shortly before January, 1939, Anna S. Staatz began making her home with her son Albert, and was living with him at the time of the execution of the deed in question, and was under his influence. It was he who summoned the attorney who wrote up the deed in question, and also summoned Mr. Mann, a notary public, with directions to bring his seal with him.
9. "The only consideration for the deed in question was a contract executed at the same time as the deed, which provided that Albert was to care for his mother as long as she lived, and was to pay his brother Julius $500.00 and his sister Amelia $2500.00. Later this contract and the only copy thereof, with the consent of Anna S. Staatz, were destroyed.
10. "In March, 1939, a new contract was made to be substituted for the destroyed contract. This new contract provided that Albert was to provide for his mother as long as she lived, pay her burial expenses, and after her death pay $200.00 to each of the seven other children.
11.
Appellants contend the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence but are contrary thereto. The contentions on appeal grow out of finding No. 11. We shall first direct our attention to the portion thereof in which it was found that on January 4, 1939, Anna S. Staatz was of feeble mind to such an extent that she was incompetent to transact business.
Appellants emphasize the fact the same district court which affirmed the probate court's adjudication of incompetency, later rendered the judgment in the instant case. They insist the trial judge was prejudiced by reason of his former ruling on the subject of incompetency in the case which was appealed to the district court from the probate court. Appellants very properly remind us that the instant deed of January 4, 1939 was executed prior to the incompetency hearing in the probate court. They, therefore, urge us to carefully scrutinize the record in order to determine the grantor's competency on the date the instant deed was executed. We have carefully examined the record and in so doing have given particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Farrow
...acted voluntarily with full knowledge of all the material facts and no undue influence was exercised by the attorney. In Mann v. Staatz, 156 Kan. 275, 133 P.2d 103, a mother executed a deed to her younger son on January 4, 1939. The record showed she stated that her mind wandered away, that......
-
Stumfoll v. Inman
...by substantial evidence (Wilsey State Bank v. Amend, 107 Kan. 25, 190 P. 739; Brown v. Brown, 146 Kan. 7, 68 P.2d 1105; Mann v. Staatz, 156 Kan. 275, 133 P.2d 103; Rupp v. Rupp, 170 Kan. 651, 228 P.2d 692; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cromwell, 187 Kan. 573, 576, 358 P.2d 761; S......
-
Nevin v. Hoffman
...Kan. 833, 22 P.2d 471, 474 (1933). But see Bethany Hospital Co. v. Philippi, 82 Kan. 64, 107 P. 530 (1910). See also Mann v. Staatz, 156 Kan. 275, 133 P.2d 103 (1943). 3 Anderson v. Anderson, 137 Kan. 833, 22 P.2d 471, 474 (1933). 4 Cornell University v. Howard, 170 Kan. 633, 228 P.2d 680 (......
-
Walker v. Anderson
... ... or compare conflicting evidence. In re Estate of ... Boyce, 155 Kan. 549, 127 P.2d 424; Mann v ... Staatz, 156 Kan. 275, 133 P.2d 103; In re Estate of ... Pallister, 159 Kan. 7, 152 P.2d 61. These principles, of ... course, apply to each ... ...