Marron v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 17 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | 46558. |
| Citation | 16 N.W.2d 14,235 Iowa 108 |
| Parties | MARRON v. BOWEN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
James P. Marron, of Central City, Neb., pro se, and Pizey, Sears & Pizey, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Free & Free, of Sioux City, and W. D. McCarthy, of Ponca Neb., for appellee.
The real estate involved herein is a house and lot in Sioux City Iowa, formerly owned by Catherine E. Kneifl who died February 8, 1943. Each party claims title under deed from Mrs. Kneifl. The deed to appellant James Marron was dated October 7, 1941 and recorded February 10, 1943. Appellee Rose Bowen's deed was made October 17, 1941, and recorded October 18 1941. It reserved a life estate in Mrs. Kneifl.
Mrs. Kneifl a widow had occupied the property until about June, 1941, when she moved to Ponca, Nebraska. She was then 87 years to age and was in ill health. Appellant was Mrs. Kneifl's nephew, and her only heir at law. She had raised him, provided him with a collegiate and legal education, and at various times thereafter had given him money.
In 1941 appellant was a practicing attorney at O'Neill, Nebraska. In the last half of that year he secured from his aunt conveyances to himself of several parcels of real estate as hereinafter noted. One of these was the deed to the Sioux City property involved in this case. He testified these conveyances were gifts to him.
July 17, 1941 appellant took his aunt by automobile from Ponca to a Sioux City hospital. He testified that before starting he secured her signature to a deed which conveyed to him a 280 acre Nebraska farm and that her acknowledgment was taken en route. Other witnesses testified Mrs. Kneifl told them appellant took her from her sick bed in Ponca to the Sioux City hospital contrary to the advice of her attending physician; that appellant stopped his car in the business district of Ponca, that appellant and John Hurley (a notary public) came to the car with a deed to the Nebraska farm and she signed it; that she wasn't aware of what she was signing; that while it was her intention this appellant should eventually receive this farm she hated to be forced to give it and felt that she should have reserved the property during her lifetime.
On July 31, 1941, appellant went to the hospital and procured her signature to a deed to real estate in Omaha. At the same time a will prepared for her signature was presented to and signed by her. The terms of the instrument had been dictated by appellant. He was present in the hospital room at this time and he took possession of the will. The will devised the Sioux City property to appellant.
Shortly thereafter the Sioux City attorney who drew the will was called to the hospital. On that occasion appellant was not present. Mrs. Kneifl told the attorney she wanted to will the Sioux City property to appellee. A new will which so provided was drawn and was executed by Mrs. Kneifl.
Appellant made frequent visits to the hospital. In August he arranged to have his aunt taken in an ambulance to the house in Sioux City and engaged a nurse to care for her. Appellant returned Mrs. Kneifl to Ponca late in September.
A witness for appellant testified that on October 6, 1941, at the request of Mrs. Kneifl who was then ill, the witness telephoned appellant that his aunt wanted some business transacted in Sioux City. Appellant's version of this is that he was told his aunt desired that he come 'and see about the Sioux City property.' He testified he drove from O'Neill to Ponca, October 7, stopping enroute to secure a blank deed and bringing Tom Hall to Ponca from South Sioux City, that he went to the office of notary public Hurley and drew the deed to the Sioux City property here in controversy, and that, accompanied by Hall and Hurley, he took it to her bedside and had her sign it. His excuse for his failure to record the deed until after the death of his aunt was that she so requested.
Appellee was a widow residing in Colorado. She was a cousin to Mrs. Kneifl and was Mrs. Kneifl's nearest surviving blood relative on her mother's side. Mrs. Kneifl's letters indicate a deep affection for appellee.
On October 17, 1941, Mrs. Kneifl called a lawyer to her home in Ponca and instructed him to draw the deed conveying the Sioux City property to appellee. At that time she asked the lawyer what effect a prior will would have on the property and he advised her it would not affect the title to property which she did not own at the time of her death. Apparently she made no inquiry as to the effect of a prior deed.
After the deed to appellee was signed and acknowledged Mrs. Kneifl asked the lawyer what to do with it and was advised that delivery, or recording which would amount to delivery, was necessary to its validity. Under her instructions he had the deed recorded and returned it to her. Shortly thereafter appellee received the deed in a letter written for Mrs. Kneifl which stated in part: 'Grandmother asked me to write a letter to you, since she is not able to write * * * She is enclosing the deed to the house in Sioux City to you * * * Grandmother hopes you and your family will come and live there some day when you are able.'
Appellant admits he knew his aunt intended to give the property to appellee but says that was if appellee 'would come and take care of her.' However, letters written by and for Mrs. Kneifl which express her desire that appellee come to Sioux City indicate that no condition was to be attached to the deed of the Sioux City property to appellee. There is much other proof that Mrs. Kneifl intended to deed the Sioux City property to appellee and also evidence that on different occasions in 1942 Mrs. Kneifl said she had done so.
The regularity of appellee's deed is not questioned. Appellant relies upon the fact that his deed bears the prior date. Appellee pleaded, among other things, that if Mrs. Kneifl executed the deed to appellant, she had no intention of passing title to the premises to appellant at said time or thereafter; that a fiduciary relation existed between appellant and his aunt and appellant fraudulently obtained the execution of the deed.
I. Did such fiduciary relation exist between appellant and his aunt? Appellant was a practicing attorney and actively participated in the trial of this case. He testified:
Generally speaking, the relation between attorney and client is always fiduciary. It is clear appellant acted as attorney for his aunt in most of her affairs and that this transaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial