Stonewall v. Danielson
| Decision Date | 10 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 38563.,38563. |
| Citation | 217 N.W. 456,204 Iowa 1367 |
| Parties | STONEWALL v. DANIELSON ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Calhoun County; R. L. McCord, Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action in equity to establish her interest in the estate of Charles Danielson, deceased. Because the district court found adversely to her claim, she appeals. Affirmed.F. E. Northup, of Marshalltown, and Jacobs & McCaulley, of Lake City, for appellant.
Stevenson & Stevenson, of Rockwell City, and Kelleher & Mitchell, of Ft. Dodge, for appellees.
A statement of the facts is essential for an understanding of the issues involved.
Charles, J. A., D. V., Oscar R., and Hilda F. Danielson and Jennie A. Stonewall, the appellant (née Danielson), were brothers and sisters. Three of them, that is to say, J. A. and D. V. Danielson, defendants and appellees, and Charles Danielson, now deceased, went to Calhoun county in the year 1883 to commence their life's work, adopting farming as their occupations. As a result of their efforts they acquired approximately $100,000 of personal property and a section of land in the county of their endeavors. All these earthly possessions were accumulated under the oral agreement and understanding, made at the inception, that all property obtained, including real and personal, should be held by them as joint tenants. This cojunctive ownership was to cover not only the original, but all increase thereof and substitutions therefor, and upon the death of one of them, the same, under this compact, was to pass and vest in the two remaining, and, in the event of the decease of the second, the title to said holdings was, under the arrangement, to become absolutely that of the last survivor. Faithfully carrying out this project, no member of the trio ever married.
On the 1st day of September, 1922, Charles died, survived by his brothers and sisters above named. Subsequently, on the 5th day of September of that year, Hilda F. and Oscar R. Danielson, together with Jennie A. Stonewall, deeded and quitclaimed any and all interest they may have had in the farms, and by assignment and bill of sale transferred all right, if any they possessed, in the chattels; afterwards, on the 7th day of said month, Tobias Stonewall, the husband of Jennie A., executed and delivered to appellees a quitclaim deed covering said realty. Those “deeds” contained the following preamble:
“Know all men by these presents: That whereas, C. A. Danielson died intestate in Calhoun county, Iowa, on the 1st day of September, A. D. 1922, a single person, whose father and mother are both deceased; and the said C. A. Danielson never having married, and leaving no wife and no child or children surviving him, but leaving his brothers and sisters, viz:--Hilda F. Danielson, Jennie A. Stonewall, J. A. Danielson, D. V. Danielson, and Oscar R. Danielson as his sole and only heirs at law; and whereas, C. A. Danielson, J. A. Danielson, and D. V. Danielson were joint owners of an estate in joint tenancy and were joint tenants in all the property owned and held by the said J. A. Danielson, D. V. Danielson, and C. A. Danielson; and whereas, by an agreement heretofore entered into between the said J. A. Danielson, D. V. Danielson, and C. A. Danielson it was agreed that all of said property owned and accumulated by them should be owned by them as joint tenants, and upon the death of either of said J. A. Danielson, D. V. Danielson, and C. A. Danielson, all of the property should belong to the survivor or survivors.”
Following this was the release and transfer clause; then appeared the signatures and acknowledgments; Jennie A. Stonewall first signed the instruments herself, and then she in her own hands carried the one to her husband for his signature and acknowledgment.
Probate proceedings on the intestate estate of Charles Danielson were duly had, reports made, approved, and final release of the administrator procured, during which time no claim was made or filed by appellant for any property or interest belonging to the “estate.” Every particle and description of “property” first above named was listed there as “jointly owned” under the “tenancy” originally founded.
Finally, on the 28th day of January, 1926, appellant filed her petition asking that she be declared the owner of a one-fifteenth interest in all said acreage and other assets, and that an accounting be made to her of the rents and profits, for the reason that she “was induced to part with her interest”: First, “on the pretense, and claim that the property was owned jointly by C. A. Danielson, deceased,” and the two appellants; second, “when overwhelmed by emotion”; third, “without consideration” and “through misrepresentations under the claim that the property would be held intact and not be alienated and disposed of, but retained in trust” by appellants “for the use and benefit of the heirs at law of C. A. Danielson, deceased.” Answering, the appellees pleaded the “joint tenancy, execution of the quitclaim deed and bill of sale,” closing of the estate, payment of expenses of administration and inheritance tax, relying upon said instruments, and a general denial.
Upon the issues thus joined, a judgment and decree was entered in favor of appellees, and the appeal was taken to correct alleged errors, which will now be considered.
[1] I. Nowhere in the record is there sufficient evidence to establish confidential relationship between appellant and appellees. Though they were brothers and sisters, no presumption arises to this effect. Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa, 507, 138 N. W. 873;Mallow v. Walker, 115 Iowa, 238, 88 N. W. 452, 91 Am. St. Rep. 158;Chidester v. Turnbull, 117 Iowa, 168, 90 N. W. 583;Steen v. Steen, 169 Iowa, 264, 151 N. W. 115;Lavelle v. Lavelle, 164 Iowa, 99, 145 N. W. 476;Halbur v. Singsank, 198 Iowa, 1246, 200 N. W. 916.Reeves v. Howard, 118 Iowa, 121, 91 N. W. 896, contains the following statement:
“We think no case can be found where the relationship of brother and sister, both of mature age, living in separate homes, with no special dependence of either upon the other, is held to taint any gift or transfer of property between them with a presumption of fraud.”
In the case at bar Mrs. Stonewall lived with her husband and family separate and apart from her brothers. She was 56 years of age, and the appellants were much older. There was “no special dependence of either upon the other.”
[2] II. At the inception of this controversy, the burden of proof was, and at all times remained, upon appellant to show fraud, undue influence, misunderstanding, and mistake; and at this juncture the proof must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing. Epps v. Dickerson, 35 Iowa, 301;Johnson v. Tyler, 175 Iowa, 723, 157 N. W. 184;Schrimper v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 115 Iowa, 35, 82 N. W. 916, 87 N. W. 731;Harvey v. Phillips, 193 Iowa, 231, 186 N. W. 910;Edmunds v. Minemiers, 200 Iowa, 805, 204 N. W. 219;Brechwald v. Small, 180 Iowa, 22, 161 N. W. 20.
[3] Hilda F. and Oscar R. Danielson confirm their own action in making the conveyances and are not seeking to overcome or repudiate their doings in the premises. Quite alone is the “testimony” of appellant, and in many places it is inconsistent, but at all times her declarations are contradicted by other witnesses equally as credible as she. Johnson v. Tyler, supra, embodies this apt discussion:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial