Seifert v. Demaree

Decision Date21 September 1942
Docket NumberNo. 26720.,26720.
Citation380 Ill. 283,43 N.E.2d 957
PartiesSEIFERT v. DEMAREE et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from City Court of Granite City; Ralph Cook, Judge.

Action by Marko Seifert against Tresa Seifert Demaree and others to have an assignment of rents from realty set aside and declared void, and to set aside a quitclaim deed executed by the plaintiff. From a decree setting aside the quitclaim deed and declaring the assignment of rents void, the defendants appeal.

Decree affirmed.

Marvin Barnes, of Granite City, for appellants.

Sullivan, Schuman & Moran, of Granite City, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

This appeal was prosecuted to this court from a decree of the city court of Granite City, setting aside a quitclaim deed executed by plaintiff, Marko Seifert, on May 13, 1940, to his daughter, Tresa Seifert Demaree, which conveyed a lot and a seven-room brick dwelling at 1651 Maple street in said city, and also declaring void and setting aside a certain assignment of rents derived from the residence located at 1651 Maple street and another dwelling situated at 1637 Maple street. The rent assignment was executed on April 24, 1940, and assigned said rents to plaintiff's two daughters, Tresa Seifert Demaree, and Anna Seifert Todoroff. The decree contained a number of findings, some of which, as will hereinafter appear, are important to a correct conclusion on the questions presented for review.

The complaint is not abstracted but it is necessary to recite, in substance, the allegations set forth therein to determine the important question of jurisdiction to entertain the errors assigned and argued. The complaint was filed March 5, 1941.

It is averred, in substance, that plaintiff, on May 13, 1940, was the owner of an undivided two-thirds interest in lot 20, block 1, of the First Addition to Granite City; that said property was reasonably worth $5,000; that on said date the defendants, Tresa Seifert Demaree and Spiro Demaree, her husband, contriving to defraud the plaintiff, obtained his signature to a quitclaim deed when plaintiff did not know what he was signing nor what interest he was conveying, and that he did not know that he was thereby divesting himself of his property, that said deed was obtained from him by his daughter, Tresa Seifert Demaree, and placed on record; that in said deed plaintiff reserved a life estate but has not collected any income from said property and that there was no consideration for the conveyance; that plaintiff is a widower, 70 years old, in ill health, and not conversant with the English language; and that defendants took advantage of and defrauded plaintiff in securing the deed from him. The complaint prayed for cancellation of the deed, the surrender of possession and an injunction restraining defendants from encumbering or disposing of the property.

On April 14, 1941, the above named defendants filed their answer in which they denied the allegations in the complaint, except they admitted the plaintiff's age and that he is a widower. For affirmative matter of defense they averred that on April 24, 1940, the plaintiff and his wife, Anna Seifert, since deceased, had prepared a deed to the future rents of the ‘property in question’ to Tresa Seifert Demaree and Anna Seifert Todoroff, and two wills were made, one by Anna Seifert, by which she devised her interest in ‘said real property’ to Tresa Seifert Demaree, and one by Marko Seifert, by which he devised ‘his interest in said real property to said defendant;’ that Marko and Anna Seifert agreed with Tresa Seifert Demaree that upon the death of one of the testators the survivor would deed his or her interest in ‘said property’ to Tresa Seifert Demaree and thus revoke the will of the survivor; that Anna Seifert died May 13, 1940, and her will was probated on July 11, 1940; that immediately after Anna Seifert's death, Marko Seifert, the plaintiff, executed the quitclaim deed to his daughter, Tresa Seifert Demaree, in accordance with that agreement; that the true consideration for the execution of the quitclaim deed, the assignment of rents and the wills was an oral promise of Tresa Seifert Demaree and Anna Seifert Todoroff to support and maintain the surviving parent in comfort during his or her natural life, to provide him or her with food, clothing, medical care and attention and $5 a week for incidentals; that plaintiff lived with defendants from April, 1940, until Christmas day, 1940, during which time defendants gave him and he accepted all the benefits of said oral agreement, but that from Christmas day up to the present the plaintiff prevented defendants from performing said agreement by refusing to accept support from them although they have always been willing to perform; that on Christmas day, 1940, plaintiff was importuned by Helen Seifert Kraus, another daughter, to refuse to accept support and that plaintiff has been unduly influenced by his daughter, Helen; and that plaintiff is estopped from saying that he did not know what he was doing when he signed the quitclaim deed, because he reassured defendants of their ownership of the property and encouraged and induced defendant, Spiro Demaree, to make expensive improvements on said premises and to pay current and back taxes thereon.

On May 8, 1941, plaintiff replied to the answer, denied the affirmative matter alleged, and challenged the quitclaim deed one the ground that it lacked mutuality and consideration.

On July 11, 1941, plaintiff amended his complaint by adding an allegation that the assignment of rents executed April 24, 1940, was without consideration, was fraudulently obtained and was revoked by the death of Anna Seifert, who joined Marko Seifert in executing the rent assignment.

The rent assignment assigned to Anna Seifert Todoroff and Tresa Seifert Demaree, ‘all our rights, titles and interests in the monthly rents we have in the past derivedfrom the houses numbered 1637 Maple Street and 1651 Maple Street, Granite City, Illinois, including all rights of action or otherwise to us accrued or hereafter to accrue thereunder, and hereby authorize the said Anna Seifert Todoroff and Tresa Seifert Demaree or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • J & B Steel Contractors, Inc. v. C. Iber & Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1994
    ...74 Ill.2d 379, 386, 24 Ill.Dec. 523, 385 N.E.2d 664; Flynn v. Vancil (1968), 41 Ill.2d 236, 242, 242 N.E.2d 237; Seifert v. Demaree (1942), 380 Ill. 283, 290, 43 N.E.2d 957. The argument assumes that there is reason to honor the rule on de novo review of a section 2-615 dismissal. (But see ......
  • Pearce v. Desper, 34316
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1957
    ... ... Seifert v. Demaree, 380 Ill. 283, 290, 43 N.E.2d 957. While both parties devote much attention to the question whether Mitchell was acting as defendant's ... ...
  • Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 1, 1955
    ... ... Kaplan v. Stein, 329 Ill. 253, 160 N.E. 552; Seifert v. Demaree, 380 Ill. 283, 43 N.E.2d 957; People ex rel. Kozielec v. Carey, 385 Ill. 16, 52 N.E.2d 205 ...         What we have said disposes ... ...
  • New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. American Transit Lines
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1949
    ... ... In Seifert v. Demaree, 380 Ill. 283, 290, 43 N.E.2d 957, 960, the court said: 'No rule is better established in appellate practice than the one which limits ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT