Nieves v. Pitterson, Civil No. 1980/308
| Decision Date | 03 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1980/308 |
| Citation | 19 V.I. 633 |
| Parties | ZOILA NIEVES and RAFAEL NIEVES, both mental incompetents by their next of kin GEORGE FELICIANO, Plaintiffs v. FELIX PITTERSON, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Action to rescind a thirty-year-old deed from plaintiffs' family to defendant on the ground that two of the persons who executed it were mentally incompetent at the time. The District Court, O'Brien, J., held that since there was no clear and convincing proof that one member of the family was incompetent and it would be inequitable to cancel the deed, the complaint would be dismissed with prejudice.EDDY RIVERA, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for plaintiffs
WARREN B. COLE, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs brought this case to rescind a thirty-year-old deed from the Nieves family to Felix Pitterson, of more than 383 acres of land in Estates Beck's Grove, Cane Valley and Clairmont, St. Croix. More properly put, the action is to rescind the deed as to them, and obtain the return of, or the value of, 2/13ths of the property. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have not sustained the burden of proof, and the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
This action was originally brought on behalf of two of the original grantors of the property in question, Zoila Nieves and Rafael Nieves. Both of them became deceased before trial, and the action was continued in the name of their heirs. In actual fact, Rafael Nieves never fathered any children, and his heirs, therefore, would be his brothers and sisters, if living, and the children of his brothers and sisters who are deceased. Zoila Nieves left children surviving her.
The transaction in question took place on or about November 7, 1953, when certain brothers and sisters comprising senior members of the Nieves family executed deeds to approximately 383 acres of land consisting of Plots 9A, 9B and 28A of Estate Beck's Grove, and Plots 27A, 27B and 28B of Estates Cane Valley and Clairmont.
The grantee was Felix Pitterson. The question of whether full value was paid for the property is not in issue, and no claim hasbeen made that Pitterson engaged in any fraudulent conduct to procure the sale of the property. Rather, the evidence is that members of the Nieves family solicited Pitterson to purchase the property, and he agreed, after another proposed sale did not take place.
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Rafael Nieves was so severely retarded that he was not competent to execute a deed of his l/13th interest in the property. It is also claimed that Zoila Nieves, living in New York City in 1953, suffered from a debilitating mental illness which made her incompetent at the time she executed the deed. In fact, it is alleged that she was hospitalized in a mental institution for this illness. Thus, it is claimed, the deed should be rescinded as to these two persons, and 2/13ths of the property returned to their heirs.
[1-3] The action in this case for rescission is an equitable proceeding. Cancellation of a deed is an exercise of extraordinary powers of a court of equity which should not be exercised except where the evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. The burden rests on the party seeking to have the deed cancelled. Polette v. Williams, 496 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. 1973). Likewise, equity will not set aside a voluntary conveyance except in cases of fraud, actual or constructive. Wood v. LeGoff, 121 A.2d 468 (Me. 1968).
[4] It is also held as a general proposition of law that before rescinding a contract, the court must determine that the parties can be returned to the status quo and that there will be no undue hardship to the defendant. Barber v. Somers, 150 A.2d 408, 411 (N.H. 1959).
With these principles in mind, we turn to a discussion of the issues.
The deed to Pitterson executed by Zoila Nieves bears the date October 9, 1953, when she was in a mental hospital. It is notarized, and there is no evidence that she did not execute the deed on her own behalf. The evidence is contradictory as to whether Zoila Nieves was competent to execute the deed. Certain of her relatives state that, at the time, she was capable of understanding what was going on. Dr. Barry Ramer, testifying from medical records, indicates to the contrary. However, certain of the medical records of ZoilaNieves indicate that during the period immediately after her admission to the hospital, which is the same period when the deed was signed, she was well oriented and not in any psychotic state.
[5] Certainly, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Zoila Nieves was incompetent at the time. To the contrary, the Court finds from the evidence that Zoila Nieves, when she executed the deed to Felix Pitterson, was competent. It will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial