Simmons v. Becker
| Decision Date | 30 December 1939 |
| Citation | 63 Ohio App. 374,26 N.E.2d 939 |
| Parties | SIMMONS v. BECKER et al. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a son, twenty-three years of age, living with his father deeds his interest in real estate to his father, a presumption of fraud arises which, in an action by the son to cancel the deed, must be rebutted by those claiming under the grantee.
I L. Holderman, of Dayton, for appellant.
Holland & Holland, of Dayton, for appellee.
In the court below the plaintiff filed a petition to which motions were addressed and sustained. Subsequently he filed an amended petition, in which it is recited that the plaintiff is the son of Walter R. Simmons, and the defendant, Sylvia E Simmons, is the widow of Walter R. Simmons and the stepmother of the plaintiff; that Ann B. Simmons, mother of the plaintiff and former wife of Walter R. Simmons, died on the 18th day of May, 1931, seized of four parcels of real estate; that at the time of his mother's death, plaintiff was 18 years of age; that his mother died intestate and that his father, Walter R. Simmons, was appointed her administrator; that he and his father lived in the home place after the death of his mother; that the plaintiff performed household duties and depended entirely upon his father, Walter R. Simmons, now deceased, for advice and protection; and that the final account in the estate of Ann B. Simmons was filed on the 6th day of August, 1935, and certificates of transfer of the four parcels of real estate were filed on the same day.
Plaintiff says that on the 6th day of August, 1935, Walter R. Simmons, his father, now deceased, procured and induced plaintiff to execute a deed to him for all the real estate inherited by plaintiff from his mother; that this deed was executed while he was living with his father and there was no consideration therefor; that plaintiff relied upon the representation of his father that it was for the best interest of the plaintiff and that he, the father, would take care of the plaintiff; that plaintiff did not seek advice but relied wholly upon his father.
It is stated that in October, 1935, the defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, was married to the plaintiff's father who died on the 15th of November, 1936; that the defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, now claims as an heir of Walter R. Simmons, her deceased husband, the undivided half of the premises described. Plaintiff prays that the deed executed by him to his father be ordered cancelled or that Becker, as administrator of the estate of Walter R. Simmons, and the defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, be ordered to convey the premises to the plaintiff, that they by enjoined from disposing of the same, and that a constructive trust in the premises be ordered in favor of the plaintiff.
Motions were filed to this amended petition and overruled.
To this petition Becker, administrator, filed a general denial. Sylvia E. Simmons filed an answer admitting a number of the allegations of the petition but denying all others, especially that there was no consideration for the deed from Walter K. Simmons to Walter R. Simmons, and specifically denying that the plaintiff relied upon the representation of his father and that Walter K. Simmons did not seek advice from others before making the deed.
She alleged that the plaintiff, Walter K. Simmons, at the time he executed the deed to Walter R. Simmons on August 6, 1935, was 23 years of age and represented by attorneys and acted on his own initiative and not under the influence of his father.
To the answer of Sylvia E. Simmons, a reply was filed by Walter K. Simmons denying all allegations not contained in his amended petition.
On February 6, 1939, the cause came on for hearing upon the pleadings and the court found for the plaintiff, Walter K. Simmons, and against the defendants, George Becker, administrator, and Sylvia E. Simmons, widow of Walter R. Simmons. The court found that the deed executed by the plaintiff on August 6, 1935, to plaintiff's father should be cancelled; that a constructive trust in the premises was created in favor of the plaintiff at the date of the execution of the deed; that the defendants, Sylvia E. Simmons, widow, and George Becker, administrator, not being purchasers for value, had no claim or interest to the premises; and that the title should be restored to the plaintiff, Walter K. Simmons.
A motion for new trial was made and overruled and the final order was made on March 7, 1939, to the effect that the deed be cancelled and that a constructive trust was created in favor of the plaintiff; that the defendants have no claim or interest in the premises; and that the plaintiff is the owner in fee simple and entitled to the immediate possession. It was adjudged that the decree of the court have the force and effect of cancelling, setting aside and annulling the deed given by plaintiff and the clerk was directed to have the decree recorded.
The defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, gave notice of appeal on questions of law and fact and the case was lodged in this court.
The docket and journal entries disclose that on October 20, 1938, the matter came on to be heard upon the motion of Sylvia E. Simmons for a separate finding of facts and conclusions of law in the decision of the court, 'and the court finding said motion well taken sustains the same.'
We will make a brief analysis of the findings of fact. The court, in a number of instances, has made strong statements, which, if supported by the evidence, would justify the order made, but which, if not justified by the evidence, would indicate that the court's finding of law was not properly supported by the facts. In this analysis of the finding, we will indicate by italicizing the finding of facts upon which we have some doubt as to the sufficiency of supporting evidence.
The court made a preliminary statement as to finding of facts, which recited the circumstances leading up to the deed made by the son ot the father and specially referred to the settling of the mother's estate, and found in part:
'And while the father was still acting in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Ann B. Simmons, this father advised and induced the plaintiff herein, his son, Walter K. Simmons, to convey to him, the father, the legal title to the premises which are described in the amended petition.
'And the father further represented that the conveying of the premises from the son to him, the father, would not be for the purpose of actually giving to the father all the interest in the premises, but was a mere temporary transfer.'
'The son when he reached the age of maturity continued to live and dwelled alone with his father in this home; he was not emancipated but was dominated in his every wish by the father, whose suggestions and opinions were followed unhesitatingly, and with great confidence and respect for the father; that undue influence was exercised by the father, in inducing the plaintiff, his child to convey the child's entire inheritance to this father; that the child having great love, faith and confidence in his father and belief in the representation of the father and acting upon that representation that such a conveyance would only be temporary, did thereupon make the conveyance and did not receive any consideration therefor.
' The court finds that no where is there any evidence of an intention on the part of the plaintiff to make a gift to his father.
The court found that the defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, is the surviving spouse of Walter R. Simmons, deceased, and is now claiming her rights as widow as follows: Year's allowance, $1250; exemption, $1200; and one-half of the real estate described in the plaintiff's amended petition.
The facts in this case must arouse sympathy. The plaintiff when 18 years of age suffered the loss of his own mother from whom he inherited the property, subject to the dower rights of his father. When he was 23 years of age and still living with his father, he, on the 6th of August, 1935, made a deed to his father, then unmarried. On the 1st of October, 1935, the father married the defendant, Sylvia E. Simmons, and on the 15th day of November, 1936, died intestate leaving Sylvia, his surviving spouse, who now claims an interest in the property that came to her deceased husband from his son, who had inherited it from his own mother. In the meantime the son was married. The claim of the plaintiff's stepmother, as a widow of his father, to a large portion of the property which the plaintiff inherited from his own mother and deeded to his father, does not present any stronger appeal to our sense of fairness than it did to that of the court below. However, we can not let our sympathy influence our judgment.
There are a number of witnesses in this matter, much of whose testimony is of little or no consequence in throwing light upon the controversy.
One Edgar G. Denlinger, who was the attorney for the estate of Ann Simmons, was a witness introduced by the plaintiff, and he testified, in substance, that he had a conversation with Kenneth, the son, no one being present, some time before the deed was executed. Kenneth came to his office and stated hw would like him to prepare a deed granting all the property of his mother's estate to his father. The attorney stated that he questioned him as to whether he understood what he was doing, that he told the plaintiff he would be conveying all his ownership to his fa...
To continue reading
Request your trial