Price v. Reilly

• Decision Date: 27 October 1944
• Docket Number: 148/59.
• Citation: 39 A.2d 426
• Parties: PRICE et al. v. REILLY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

39 A.2d 426

PRICE et al.

v.REILLY et al.

148/59.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 27, 1944.

Suit by Helen Price and others against Mabel Reilly and others to set aside conveyances by James W. Gordon, deceased, the father of certain of the complainants, to himself and named defendant as joint tenants, and for other relief.

Decree entered dismissing the complaint.

A conveyance by way of gift made voluntarily and with full understanding by the grantor after independent advice as to its effect, will not be set aside even though the gift may have been made improvidently.

Even if the relations between the grantor and grantee were immoral, that is not sufficient in itself to raise a presumption that the conveyance was procured by undue influence exerted by the grantee.

Pesin & Resin (by Meyer Pesin), of Jersey City, for complainants.

William W. Wimmer, of North Arlington, for defendant Mabel Reilly.

FIELDER, Vice Chancellor.

A final decree was entered in this cause dismissing the bill of complaint. Appeal therefrom having been taken. I file the following reasons for having advised the decree.

The bill of complaint was filed by the children and grandchildren, heirs at law and next of kin of James W. Gordon, deceased, and by the administratrix of his estate, to set aside conveyances by Gordon of real estate in Lyndhurst owned by him in fee, to himself and defendant Mabel Reilly as joint tenants; also to have declared void a change in beneficiary in two policies of insurance on Gordon's life, by which change said defendant was named as beneficiary under said policies; also to have said defendant account for personal assets belonging to deceased.

The main facts are not in much dispute. Gordon died intestate March 23, 1944, at the age of seventy-four, leaving him surviving four children and children of a deceased son, as his heirs at law and next of kin. He died seized of no real property, and the value of his personal estate, which consisted of an automobile, household furniture and two weeks' wages of $80, was about $500 exclusive of about $350 received by his administratrix from some form of life insurance. His wife had died February 24, 1938. He had been an employee of Public Service Co. for nearly twenty-five years, most of the time as an engineer but in later years as a janitor, and was working at his job regularly up to the day before his death. His health was good and his mental condition normal. He died suddenly at his Lyndhurst home.

All of Gordon's children, except one, resided at some distance from him. He was on friendly terms with them, but after his wife's death he preferred to continue to reside alone in his home, rather than with his children and beside, his place of work was in Jersey City. The defendant, Mrs. Reilly, resided in Jersey City with her widowed mother, her siter, her brother-in-law and her son who is about twenty-eight years old and who was at the time of the hearing, in military service in Italy. Mrs. Reilly is the widow of a Jersey City fire captain and lives on a pension. At the time of the hearing she was fifty years of age. Gordon had been a friend of her family upward of thirty years and had visited them frequently during that period. About four months after Gordon's wife died he called at defendant's home and was blue and melancholy-undoubtedly he was a lonely man-and thereafter his calls became more frequent and he took defendant out to movies and to restaurants. Two months after his first visit at defendant's home he told her it was terrible to be home alone and asked her to come to his Lyndhurst home as a companion and she consented to go Fridays and remain until the following Monday morning, cooking for him and keeping his house clean, returning after each wek-end to her mother's home. A bedroom at Gordon's home was assigned to her which she occupied, furnishing it with her own furniture. That arrangement continued up to the time of Gordon's death and his children knew of it because they visited at his home occasionally during that six-year period. Defendant was not paid for her services and at times she brought food to his home and made Gordon small loans which he repaid.

A bank account was opened May 7, 1938, in their joint names and all money deposited therein was that given from time to time by Gordon to defendant, presumably saved from his wages, to deposit in that account. All withdrawals from the account were made by checks signed by Gordon and the account was closed in September, 1940, after which time Gordon gave defendant no more money and there is no testimony to show what he did thereafter with his wages, but presumably he had to use what balance he had in the joint account and what money he could save from his wages, to meet the monthly payments required on the mortgage note next mentioned.

In November, 1938, Gordon was granted a loan of $4,500 by a Rutherford bank through its Lyndhurst branch. The loan was on his note payable in one month, endorsed by Mrs. Reilly and secured by Gordon's mortgage on his home. It was renewed monthly on the same type of note and was finally paid in full by Gordon October 26, 1942. Part, at least, of the loan was used to discharge a prior mortgage on the property.

The conveyances attacked are dated May 3, 1940, recorded May 7, 1940, and the undisputed testimony with respect thereto is that without defendant's knowledge, solicitation or suggestion, Gordon called on the lawyer who had represented the Rutherford bank in the matter of the mortgage loan to him. He went alone April 26, 1940, and told the lawyer he wanted to ‘place Mrs. Reilly's name on his deed’ and wanted her to have the property in the event anything happened to him, and he sought the lawyer's advice. Their conference occupied about an hour, during which the lawyer (who did not know Mrs. Reilly) questioned Gordon as to the reason for his desire and was told by Gordon that Mrs. Reilly was his housekeeper and was taking care of his home for him, which was the only was he could maintain it and that she had treated him fairly and honestly and he wanted to reward her for her services. The lawyer told Gordon he was taking a serious step and if he put her name on the deed, he would be...