Martin S. v. Moore S.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1923
• Citation: 92 W.Va. 671
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Ray Martin et als. v. Samantha B. Moore et als.

92 W.Va. 671

Ray Martin et als.

v.Samantha B. Moore et als.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 16, 1923.

Decided January 23, 1923.

Deeds Mere age or infirmity of mind and body not sufficient to overcome mental capacity of grantor; true date of test for mental capacity time of execution of deed; burden on those seeking cancellation to show mental incapacity of grantor in deed; grantee's payment of attorney for services in drawing) deed not indicative of mental incapacity of grantor or undue influence; testimony of notary taking acknowledgment to deed, entitled to peculiar weight as to mental capacity of grantor; undue influence sufficient to set aside deed must be such as to destroy free agency of grantor; unless free agency of grantor destroyed by undue influence, showing of motive and opportunity and failing mentality insufficient to overthrow deed; suggestion and advice addressed to judgment not undue influence; deed induced by appeal to gratitude, past kindness, love, or esteem, not result of undue influence, (p. 675).

This suit being for the purpose of annulling two deeds on the grounds of lack of mental capacity in the grantor, inadequacy of consideration, fraud and undue influence on the part of the grantees, all of which is denied by the answers, and the evidence to sustain the issues being conflicting, is governed by the principles announced in Buckey v. Buckey, 38 W. Va. 168; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612; Teter v. Teter, 59 W. Va. 449; Woodville v. Woodville, 63 W. Va. 286; Black v. Post. 67 W. Va. 253; and Barnett v. Greathov.se, 77 W. Va. 514. (p. 680).

(McGinnts, Judge, absent).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wetzel County. Suit by Ray Martin and others against Samantha B. Moore and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Edwin 0. Keifer, for appellants. 8. Bruce Hall, for appellees.

Lively, Judge:

This suit was instituted by Ray Martin and thirty-one others who are a portion of the heirs of Matilda Lantz, de- ceased, and is for the purpose of the cancellation of two deeds executed by Matilda Lantz on September 18, 1919, by the first of which she conveyed to defendant, Samantha B. Moore, her niece, 189 1/4 acres of land in Wetzel county, reserving therefrom one-half of the oil, gas and coal therein, and which deed also granted her one-half of the oil, gas and coal within and underlying 32 3/4 acres of land adjoining the 189 1/4 acres tract. The other deed was made by her to Lula J. Allen, Lantzie L. Allen and Opal B. Allen, defendants, for the 32 3/4 acres adjoining the 189 1/4 acres tract, described in the first deed, and one-half of the oil, gas and coal within and underlying both tracts. The consideration mentioned in the first deed is love and affection for her niece, the grantee, and the further consideration that the grantee will reside with her, the grantor, on the land conveyed, and will take care of her during her declining years for and during the remainder of her natural life. The consideration in the other deed to the Allen girls is also love and affection which the grantor bears to them, and for services, aid and comfort which they had for many years prior thereto rendered to the grantor.

The suit was also for the purpose of partitioning the said two tracts in controversy as well as about 65 acres of land in said county, the title to which remained in Matilda Lantz at the time of her death, and which land was inherited from her father's estate. There is no controversy over the ownership and partition of this last mentioned tract. The two deeds of September 18, 1919, are sought to be set aside on the alleged grounds of mental incapacity of the grantor at the time the deeds were executed, arising from old age and sickness; that the consideration in the deed to Samantha Moore was grossly inadequate; that there was fraud and collusion practiced upon Mrs. Lantz by the grantees in the two deeds; and that the same were induced by undue influence exercised over her by the defendants. The answer specifically denies the charges in the bill, and details at length the facts and circumstances under which they were executed; denies that the grantor was mentally incapacitated at the time the deeds were executed; denies that the consideration in either of the deeds was inadequate; denies collusion and fraud and undue influence.

The issues having been sharply drawn by the pleadings, the parties went to proof, and numerous depositions were taken. The lower court found for the defendants, refused cancellation of the deeds; and plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.

John Lantz and his wife, Matilda (nee Clark), were married many years ago and had no children. They took into their home Nevada Clark, a daughter of a brother of Mrs. Lantz, when she was quite young, and reared her. When she attained maturity she married W. P. Allen, and there were born to them the Allen girls, to whom the 32 3/4 acres, with one-half of the coal, oil and gas, in the 222 acres, was conveyed, as hereinbefore set out. Allen and his wife, Nevada, continued to reside with John and Matilda Lantz, and their children were born in the home of Mrs. Lantz or possibly a short distance from her dwelling where the Aliens lived a portion of the time. While the Aliens lived in the Lantz home they shared things in common and were considered and treated as members of the family. About the year 1909 the Allen Family, who for some time prior thereto, had been living in their home a short distance away, at the request of John and Matilda Lantz, moved back into the Lantz home to take care of John Lantz, who had become sick and incapacitated by old age. Again the products of the farm were used in common by those living upon it, and all were considered as members of the family. In the latter part of 1910 John Lantz died, and left a will by which he devised his real estate, consisting of about 485 acres, and his personal property, to his wife, Matilda Lantz, and to Mrs. Allen and her three children; one-half of his estate to his widow and the other half to Nevada Allen and her children. The estate so devised was partitioned, and 222 acres set off and assigned to Matilda Lantz, and 263 acres set off and assigned to Mrs. Allen and her three children. Mrs. Allen died in 1912, and W. P. Allen and the three children continued to live with Matilda Lantz on the 222 acres in controversy until the spring of 1919 when W. P. Allen died, the three children remaining in the home of Mrs. Lantz.

The record discloses that the greatest love and affection mutually existed between Nevada Allen and her three children and Mrs. Lantz. The girls were extremely fond of Mrs. Lantz, and attended to her wants with the greatest care and solicitude, and she treated them as if they were her own children. After the death of W. P. Allen it seems that two of the girls, (who all appear to be of superior intelligence and worth), had become engaged to be married, and it became generally known that they intended to leave Mrs. Lantz and establish homes of their own. All of the girls contemplated moving into their own home a short distance away, eventually to establish independent homes of their own. This very natural inclination and determination of the girls greatly distressed Mrs. Lantz, and she often shed tears when the matter was mentioned. It was very natural she should be so distressed, as she loved them as if they were her own, and also because she would be without their care, solicitation and genial companionship, and without any one to care for her in her declining years. It appears that in 1915 and possibly earlier she anticipated that the girls would eventually leave her, and it is in evidence that she began to make tentative inquiry for some one to move into the house with her and take care of her in her old age in the event that they should leave. It appears also that she contemplated making such an arrangement with Samantha Moore, who was her blood niece, and who was frequently in her home during the childhood and adolescence of her departed niece, Mrs. Allen. In the year 1915 she sent for Mrs. Moore to come to her home to talk with her about the matter, but at that time it seems that no arrangement was made between them. Mrs. Moore was married and had a good home of her own, and it would be quite a sacrifice for her to leave her established home and undertake the maintenance and care of Mrs. Lantz, who had become old and enfeebled. It appears that on more than one occasion overtures were made to Mrs. Moore in that regard. It became rather generally known that the Allen girls contemplated leaving the Lantz home; and the care, support and maintenance of Mrs. Lantz in that event was discussed among some of the parties plaintiff tot this suit, and that they were fully aware of the situation. At the time the deeds were executed Mrs. Lantz was 87 years old, and prior thereto had become enfeebled by sickness, and it appears that in the spring and summer of 1919, and possibly back as far as 1917, her mind was not clear at times and she had illusions and frequently acted so as to indicate that she was losing control of her mental faculties. Illustrative of the vagaries which sometimes came into her mind she solemnly announcel to a visitor that several persons were sitting on top of the piano and she desired them to be requested to come down and be seated in the room, when, of course, no such persons were there. At another time she affirmed that a man and a woman had gotten in bed with her and forced her to sleep on the edge until she became very tired, and avowed that she did not know whence they came or whither they went. She was afflicted with these vagaries and lapses of memory both before and after the time of the execution of these deeds; and it is upon this evidence that the mental incapacity to execute the deeds is predicated. On the other hand, it appears that both before, at, and after the time of the execution of the...