Shydlinski v. Vogt

• Decision Date: 13 March 1962
• Citation: 406 Pa. 534,179 A.2d 240
• Parties: John A. SHYDLINSKI, also known as John A. Shyzdlinski, Appellant, v. Dorothy VOGT, Appellee. Appeal of Paula SHEDLINSKI, Executrix of the Estate of John A. Shydlinski, also known as John A. Shyzdlinski, Deceased.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

179 A.2d 240

406 Pa. 534

John A. SHYDLINSKI, also known as John A. Shyzdlinski, Appellant, v. Dorothy VOGT, Appellee.

Appeal of Paula SHEDLINSKI, Executrix of the Estate of John A. Shydlinski, also known as John A. Shyzdlinski, Deceased.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 13, 1962.

Sol Lubin, Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.

Joseph Gale, Wilkes-Barre, for appellee.

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.

O'BRIEN, Justice.

By two deeds dated March 23, 1957, and recorded March 25, 1957, John Shydlinski conveyed three parcels of real estate, situate in Luzerne County, to his daughter, Dorothy Vogt, appellee herein. One of the deeds, conveying two parcels of real estate, contained a covenant wherein the grantee undertook to care for and maintain the grantor for the rest of his life. The other deed, conveying a single parcel of real estate, contained a similar covenant in addition to reserving, to the grantor, a life estate in that parcel. By deed dated April 12, 1957, and recorded April 13 1957, John Shydlinski quitclaimed and released to appellee all his interest in all the real estate conveyed in the aforesaid deeds of March 23, 1957.

By complaint in equity filed August 25, 1958, John Shydlinski sought a reconveyance of the real estate on the grounds that the conveyances were procured through threat and coercion, fraud and undue influence practiced upon the grantor by the grantee. The Chancellor entered an adjudication and decree nisi dismissing the complaint. Exceptions to the decree nisi were dismissed by the Court en banc, and an appeal to this Court followed the final decree in favor of the defendant-appellee.

Plaintiff, John Shydlinski, died on May 11, 1960, and, by suggestion of death filed, Paula Shedlinski, his executrix, was substituted as party plaintiff, and it is she, in her representative capacity, who is Appellant here.

The decedent suffered a stroke in June of 1954, which resulted in a partial paralysis of his right side. Subsequently, in January of 1955, he underwent surgery for the removal of cataracts from his eyes. There is no dispute that the decedent, at the time of the execution of the deeds in controversy and for some time prior thereto, was aged, feeble and physically infirm.

At the time that the decedent suffered his stroke, Appellee, one of four children of decedent, was residing in Texas with her three children and her husband, who was a member of the armed forces stationed there. He was about to be transferred to an overseas post and Appellee was in the process of preparing to move her family in order to be with her husband. Upon learning of her father's illness, she put her furniture in storage and returned to Pennsylvania with her children. When she arrived she found both her mother and father ill and in need of care, whereupon she decided to remain with and care for them, despite the entreaties of her husband that she rejoin him. She remained with and cared for both her parents until the death of her mother, in January of 1955, and thereafter remained with and cared for her father until, in April of 1957, he went to New York to reside with Appellant. For part of this time, Appellee, her children and the decedent lived in a tent because the house they had been occupying was destroyed by fire. In November of 1955, the decedent executed a general power of attorney authorizing Appellee to act in his behalf.

The court below found that no confidential relationship existed between the parties to the deeds at the time of their execution; that the plaintiff had failed to establish fraud, force, coercion or undue influence; and that the conveyances in question constitute a valid gift to Appellee. Appellant argues that the court below erred in not finding a confidential relationship between the parties as a matter of law. She submits that the principal-agent relationship between them, existing by virtue of the aforementioned power of attorney, established a confidential relationship and cast the burden on Appellee of proving that the conveyances to her were fair, conscionable and proper.

This Court has recently reiterated the...