Saettle v. Perle

• Decision Date: 12 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 25030.,25030.
• Citation: 281 S.W. 431
• Parties: SAETTLE et al. v. PERLE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

281 S.W. 431

SAETTLE et al. v. PERLE et al.

No. 25030.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 12, 1926.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Frank Landwehr, Judge.

Suit by Julia Saettle and others against Erwin H. Perle and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Charles E. Morrow, N. Murray Edwards, and Eben P. Wroughton, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

Hiram N. Moore and. Charles Jerabek, both of St. Louis (W. L. Cole, of Union, and L. G. Graf, of Herman, of counsel), for respondents Edwin and Mary Perle.

C. William Koenig, of St. Louis, for respondents Christ and Elizabeth Ludwig.

LINDSAY, C.

The plaintiffs herein sued to cancel certain deeds to real estate, and, being unsuccessful, have appealed.

On November 23, 1921, one Anna Meyer, a widow, and childless, executed a deed of conveyance of the real estate owned by her in the city of St. Louis to defendants Erwin H. Perle and Mary Perle, who are husband and wife. Anna Meyer died on April 3, 1922, intestate, and leaving as her heirs the descendants of four of her deceased sisters. The plaintiffs constitute the greater number of these, but certain others, either as nonresidents or as not consenting to sue, were joined as defendants.

The original petition and a notice lis pendens were filed on October 2, 1922, and an application was also made for the appointment of a receiver. The summons and order to show cause were served on defendants Perle and his wife on October 5, 1922, in the presence of Christ Ludwig and Elizabeth Ludwig, his wife, while defendants Perle and the Ludwigs were engaged in the consummation of the sale of the property by the Perles to the Ludwigs. Later the amended petition was filed making the Ludwigs parties defendants.

The essential purpose of the suit was to cancel the deed from Anna Meyer to defendants Perle and his wife, on the grounds that at the time the deed was executed, Anna Meyer, by reason of age and infirmities, was incapable of making the deed; that it was executed without consideration; that a confidential relation existed between Anna Meyer and defendants Erwin Perle and Mary Perle; and that they, by the exercise of an undue influence over her, procured her to execute the deed with the intent to obtain the property for themselves, at the death of Anna Meyer, and to cheat and defraud and prevent the plaintiffs from inheriting their shares of said property.

Cancellation was asked of the deed from Perle and his wife to the Ludwigs on the ground that the latter took with notice, and cancellation was asked of two deeds of trust executed by Ludwig and wife to Perle and wife, for part of the purchase price.

Anna Meyer took title to the property under the will of her husband, John Meyer, who died about 13 years prior to the transactions mentioned. The property consisted of a building, the lower front part of which was occupied by a tenant for a butcher shop. Anna Meyer lived alone in two rooms at the rear of the butcher shop, and the upper floors of the building were occupied by tenants for living quarters. The property was shown to be of the value of $8,000, and rentals received by Anna Meyer amounted, ordinarily, to $74 per month. The property, as given to Anna Meyer under the will of her husband, was made subject to the payment of a legacy of $1,000 to a niece of the husband. Some years before the making of the deed sought to be canceled Mrs. Meyer had incumbered the property by a deed of trust to secure the payment of an indebtedness of $800 to the mother of defendant Mary Perle. These were unpaid at the time in question.

The deed from Anna Meyer to defendants Perle, made November 23, 1921, recited that it was made "in consideration of the sum of $10, and other valuable considerations to be paid by the" grantees. By the deed she reserved "the right to stay possessed of a life estate in the premises, with the privilege to collect the rent and profits of same for and during her lifetime."

The deed also recited that the property was subject to the bequest of $1,000, as provided in the will of John Meyer. On the day the deed was made a contract was also signed by the parties, which recited that, in consideration of the transfer of the property in suit, the defendants, as grantees in the deed, agreed with Anna Meyer to keep her "rooms within said premises in a good, clean, and comfortable condition for and during her lifetime," and they further agreed that after her death they would pay certain sums of money: To the Hessoum Orphanage at Fenton, Mo., $200; to the St. John Parish, $100; for the erection of a tombstone above the graves of Anna Meyer and her husband, $300; for expenses of funeral and burial of Anna Meyer, $300. Neither the deed nor the contract made reference to the encumbrance of the deed of trust given by Anna Meyer to the mother of defendant Mary Perle, but the existence and validity of that deed was not questioned, and it was shown that, at some time prior to the making of the contract and deed to defendants, Mary Perle had become the owner of the note for $800 secured by the deed of trust, through the death of her mother, and by purchase of the interest therein of her brother.

The defendants showed, that they paid the. legacy of $1,000 to the beneficiary named in the will, satisfied the deed of trust securing the note for $800, and also paid the amounts mentioned in the contract for the purposes therein specified, except that the amount shown to have been paid by them in expenses for the funeral and burial of Anna Meyer was $522 instead of the sum of $300 mentioned in the contract. These various payments were made before the bringing of the suit.

The essential subjects of inquiry are the condition and capacity of Anna Meyer at and prior to the time the deed was made, the nature of the relation existing between her and the defendants, and particularly the defendant Mary Perle, the question whether an undue influence was exercised over Anna Meyer, and the other circumstances attending the transaction. Anna Meyer was a native of Bohemia, but had resided in St. Louis for many years. The evidence shows she had lived in the property in question for more than 50 years. Some of the witnesses said she was 85 or 86 years old at the time of her death. Others gave her age as 88 years. She could not write or read English. The only evidence otherwise as to her education was that in the time before her eyesight failed she would read a Bohemian newspaper. A study of the record does not lead to the conclusion that she was a person readily controlled in her opinions and conduct by others, but it tends to show that she was decided in her views, and gave positive expression to them. Dr. Weinsberg, who was called by plaintiffs, and who had been her physician for 25 years, said she was a woman of strong will power and of courage. He also said she had a remarkably strong memory. He attended her on several days during the period in which she was suffering from a fall, which injured her hip, but which did not produce a bone fracture. It was during this period that the deed and, contract in question were executed. He said:

"She was a woman of strong will power, good recuperating will power for that age."

It appears from the testimony of numerous witnesses both for plaintiff and defendant that there had existed for many years a strong friendship between Anna Meyer and the mother of Mrs. Perle, and that Mrs. Perle's mother had assisted Mrs. Meyer in her household and in other matters. Mrs. Perle, at the time of the trial, was 40 years of age. She had lived in the neighborhood where Mrs. Meyer lived since she was a girl. Mrs. Joe Billmeier, a witness called by plaintiffs, but not a kin to any of the parties in suit, testified that she had lived for 22 years right across the street from Anna Meyer, had visited her often as neighbors do, and talked with her. She told of the nature of the relation between Mrs. Meyer and the mother of Mrs. Perle, and said that Mrs. Meyer spoke of Mrs. Perle's mother as her good friend, and said to the witness, when the mother of Mrs. Perle died, "Now I ain't got nobody."

The testimony in the record shows that, after the death of Mrs. Perle's mother, which occurred about 8 years prior to the transaction in issue, Mrs. Perle herself succeeded to the relation formerly borne by her mother to Anna Meyer, and performed the duties formerly rendered by her mother, and did so in increasing measure, as Mrs. Meyer's strength and eyesight failed.

The evidence is that, for a period running back about 5 years prior to the death of Anna Meyer, Mrs. Perle came to her rooms almost daily; that she cleaned the rooms, scrubbed the floors, did the washing and ironing, mending and sewing, and sometimes prepared a meal for Mrs. Meyer; that she did the shopping and errands, collected or helped in collecting rents from the tenants, made out and signed the receipts for Mrs. Meyer, paid taxes for her, and assisted in such other matters as were necessary. Mrs. Perle, in her deposition taken by plaintiffs, testified that Mrs. Meyer paid her 50 cents a week for doing the washing, but that she did not pay her for other things done.

Defendant, Erwin Perle, in his deposition taken by the plaintiffs, testified that in the 5-year period he painted the building, did some carpenter work and various other kind of work in keeping up the repairs; that Mrs. Meyer paid for the materials used, but did not pay him for his labor.

John J. Storr, one of the plaintiffs, a nephew of Anna Meyer, testified that about 7 or 8 years before her death he painted the building, and that Mrs. Meyer paid him for it; that previous to that time he had done other work about the premises for which she paid him. There is evidence of others who did repair work such as is done by a tinner or plumber, and that some work of this kind was done during the period while defendants were engaged.

According to the...