McOuatt v. McOuatt

• Decision Date: 12 November 1946
• Citation: 320 Mass. 410,69 N.E.2d 806
• Parties: McOUATT et al. v. McOUATT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

320 Mass. 410

69 N.E.2d 806

McOUATT et al.

v.McOUATT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Nov. 12, 1946.

Action by Duncan McOuatt and others against Ellen A. McOuatt to set aside a transfer of real estate made by plaintiffs' father to the defendant on the ground that grantor was of unsound mind and that the transfer was procured by undue influence. From an interlocutory decree confirming the report of the master after a paragraph therein had been stricken out denying the plaintiffs' motion for a final decree in their favor and allowing the defendant's motion to confirm the master's report as modified, and from a final decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiffs appeal.

Interlocutory decree affirmed and final decree reversed and a new decree to be entered setting aside the deed with costs if suitable amendment to bill is procured, otherwise the final decree affirmed with costs.Appeal from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Hammond, Judge.

Before FIELD, C. J., and QUA, RONAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.

R. T. Capeless, L. S. Cain, A. W. Chesney, and R. A. Lewis, all of Pittsfield, for plaintiffs.

M. B. Warner and F. J. Quirico, both of Pittsfield, for defendant.

RONAN, Justice.

This is a bill in equity brought by the three children of one McOuatt to set aside a transfer of real estate made by him to the defendant, his wife and the stepmother of the plaintiffs, on the ground that he was of unsound mind and that the transfer was procured by the undue influence of the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed from an interlocutory decree confirming the report of the master after a paragraph therein had been struck out, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a final decree in their favor, and allowing the defendant's motion to confirm the master's report as modified. They also have appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill.

It is not now contended that the master was wrong in finding that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of proving that McQuatt was of unsound mind when he executed the deed, and we need not consider that question.

All the subsidiary findings of the master upon the issue of undue influence and upon which he based his ultimate conclusion are set forth in his report. It is our duty to draw our own inferences from those findings. Saltman v. Smith, 313 Mass. 135, 46 N.E.2d 550;Murray v. Bateman, 315 Mass. 113, 51 N.E.2d 954. The ruling of that master that the burden was upon the defendant to prove that she did not exert undue influence upon her husband was wrong, and there was no error in striking out this portion of the report. Cereghino v. Giannone, 247 Mass. 319, 142 N.E. 153;Briggs v. Weston, 294 Mass. 452, 2 N.E.2d 466;Mirick v. Phelps, 297 Mass. 250, 8 N.E.2d 749. We summarize briefly the findings of the master. Before her marriage to McQuatt in 1934, the defendant requested him to put the property in both of their names after the marriage, and this matter was discussed between them on four or five occasions up to 1940, but he replied that he would do so as soon as they could go and consult a lawyer. While at a hospital, which he entered in August, 1943 he frequently expressed a desure to consult a lawyer with reference to his property, but he was unable to do so on account of his physical condition. The defendant as a result of a conversation she had with her husband on the morning of November 12, 1943, spoke to a nurse at the hospital who called in an attorney. The attorney conferred with the defendant, and had the chief physician at the hospital interview McOuatt to determine the latter's capacity to transact business. McOuatt told the physician that he knew what he was about to do, that he was to sign papers to protect his wife, and that he had been intending to do this for some time. The defendant obtained a deed which the attorney had prepared and brought it to the hospital. She told her husband what it was, and in her presence a hospital clerk, who was a notary public, asked him if he knew what he was about to sign. He said that he did and that he was turning over his property to his wife. He executed the deed by making an X with the assistance of the notary public. At some time thereafter he requested the defendant to have the deed recorded, which she did. He died some eight hours after he executed the deed.

A wife has the right to discuss with her husband the advisability of giving her an interest in his property, and to request and, if necessary, to persuade him to make some provision for her benefit. The findings here go no farther than to show the making of such a request by her and fall far short of proving that the husband was induced by any undue influence of his wife, even if the transfer omitted any provision for his children, one of whom he was fond of, and even though it comprised all his property, which appears to be worth only a few thousand dollars. Maynard v. Tyler, 168 Mass. 107, 46 N.E. 413;Aldrich v. Aldrich, 215 Mass. 164, 102 N.E. 487, Ann.Cas.1914C, 906;Fitch v. Fitch, 249 Mass. 550, 144 N.E. 379;Hogan v. Whittemore, 278 Mass. 573, 180 N.E. 526.

During the hearings before the master, evidence bearing on the issue of undue influence was properly introduced to show the circumstances attending the execution of the deed. This evidence now gives rise to the question whether this deed was duly acknowledged. In addition to the findings already recited on the issue of undue influence and which now must be considered with reference to the acknowledgment of the deed, the master found that, after the deed was executed, the notary public ‘notarized’ the deed, that nothing was said at this time, and that McOuatt ‘did not employ any language to indicate that he acknowledged the instrument as his free act and deed.'

Title to real estate may be transferred by a deed which has not been acknowledged or which contains a certificate showing a defective acknowledgment, and the deed is good against the grantor and his heirs and those having actual notice, G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 183, § 4, as appearing in St.1941, c. 85; Dole v. Thurlow, 12 Metc. 157;Palmer v. Paine, 9 Gray, 56;Hayden v. Peirce, 165 Mass. 359, 43 N.E. 119;Cooper v. Monroe, 237 Mass. 192, 129 N.E. 436; but the grantor must acknowledge that he has executed the instrument as his free act and deed, and a certificate reciting that the grantor appeared before the officer making the certificate and made such acknowledgment must be attached to the instrument in order to entitle it to be recorded, G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 183, § 29; Pidge v. Tyler, 4 Mass. 541;Shaw v. Poor, 6 Pick. 86,17 Am.Dec. 347;Old Colony Trust Co. v. Medfield & Medway Street Railway, 215 Mass. 156, 102 N.E. 484, so that notice of the conveyance shall be given to all the world. Toupin v. Peabody, 162 Mass. 473; 39 N.E. 280;Hayden v. Peirce, 165 Mass. 359, 363, 43 N.E. 119;Lamson & Co., Inc., v. Abrams, 305 Mass. 238, 25 N.E.2d 374. The certificate of acknowledgment furnishes formal proof of the authenticity of the execution of the instrument when presented for recording. The certificate of acknowledgment is of evidentiary character, and the taking of the acknowledgment has always been regarded in this Commonwealth as a ministerial and not as a judicial act and the recitals contained in the certificate may be contradicted, Learned v. Riley, 14 Allen, 109, 113;McDonald v. Willis, 143 Mass. 452, 9 N.E. 835;O'Neil v. Webster, 150 Mass. 572, 573, 23 N.E. 235; and so may the certificate of a judge before whom is proved the execution of the deed where the grantor dies without acknowledging the instrument and where the certificate from the judge is obtained in order to have the instrument recorded. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 183, § 34; Ayer v. Ahlborn, 174 Mass. 292, 54 N.E. 555;New England Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Brock, 270 Mass. 107, 111, 169 N.E. 803, 68 A.L.R. 371.

It follows that ordinarily an acknowledgment is not an essential part of a deed; but if it is desired to record the deed in order to charge the world with notice of the conveyance, then it is necessary that the deed be acknowledged and that a certificate reciting this fact be attached to the deed. Doubtless, that is the principal function of a certificate of acknowledgment. O'Neil v. Webster, 150 Mass. 572, 23 N.E. 235;New England Bond & Mortgage...