Sullivan v. Clear

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
• Citation: Sullivan v. Clear, 101 Conn. 603, 127 A. 14 (Conn. 1924)
• Decision Date: 12 December 1924
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. CLEAR.

127 A. 14

101 Conn. 603

SULLIVAN v. CLEAR.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 12, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John P. Kellogg Judge.

Action by John J. Sullivan, administrator of the estate of Julia Norris, deceased, against William J. Clear, to recover damages from defendant, grantee of plaintiff's intestate by reason of conveyance obtained through alleged incompetence of intestate, and of undue influence by defendant. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The complaint alleges the prior ownership of the property in question by the intestate, Julia Norris, the making of the deed in question, the conveyance of the land therein described by the intestate to defendant, and that the deed was obtained by the persuasion, solicitations, and false representations of the defendant and without consideration although defendant knew that the intestate had two elderly sisters who were in need of a distributive share in the intestate's estate upon her death; that at the time of the conveyance Julia Norris was old and feeble in mind and understanding, susceptible to influence and did not comprehend the nature of the conveyance she was making, and that defendant took advantage of her mental incapacity, and by undue influence procured the conveyance to him; that the intestate died March 15, 1923, leaving the two sisters aforesaid and other relatives, who would inherit her estate and that plaintiff was her legally qualified administrator. Defendant's answer denied all of the allegations of the complaint except the original ownership of the property conveyed to him.

At the trial plaintiff offered evidence to prove: That Julia Norris was about 82 years old at the time of the conveyance in question, unmarried, in feeble health, with a weak vacillating and unsound mind, and in a condition unfit to comprehend the nature of the conveyance made by her. That she had spent most of her life as a domestic servant, and about 14 years before her death, on account of increasing age and feebleness, had given up work except in her own household cares. That she had invested all her savings in the property in question, which when conveyed was unincumbered, of a value of about $8,000 and rentable for from $50 to $65 a month. She lived in the upper (third) story of the house, and rented the remainder. That while defendant occupied the premises he had collected the rent therefrom. That on June 24, 1920, the deed in question was executed at her house, drawn by an attorney who had received instructions from defendant without any instructions from her. That nothing was then paid by defendant to her for the premises or thereafter, and such deed was procured by undue influence and improper persuasion of the defendant. That the latter was about 35 years of age, capable of earning good wages and in comfortable circumstances and in no need of financial assistance. That with his wife he came to live upon the premises, and was in daily contact with the intestate. That at different times Miss Norris had said that defendant had compelled her to make the conveyance to him, and had taken her property from her. That at the time of the conveyance the deceased had two sisters, older than herself, who lived in Fair Haven, and whom she frequently visited and with whom she was on entirely friendly terms. That both were old and decrepit. That deceased had frequently declared both before and after making the conveyance, that her place was to be kept as a homestead for these sisters, one a widow, the other unmarried. That at the death of the intestate, all estate left by her was the sum of $122 in a savings bank.

Defendant offered evidence to prove: That he was the son of another sister of the deceased, born in the year 1883, whose father died in 1888. That after the death of the latter, the intestate made her home with him and his mother, when she was not employed else where, that strong affection existed between him and his aunt, the deceased, with whom defendant and his mother continued to live up to his marriage in 1905. That a few years thereafter defendant's mother and the deceased went to housekeeping together on the third floor of the premises in question; that defendant lived elsewhere. That the deceased frequently requested him to move into the second floor of her house; that he frequently visited his mother and aunt, and that a strong friendship existed on the part of his aunt toward his mother and himself. That for about 5 years before June, 1920, the intestate had frequently requested the defendant to move into her premises on the second floor, desiring that he be near his mother and herself, and she frequently, during this period of time, expressed a desire to transfer and convey the premises to the defendant. That a short time prior to June 1, 1920, she again requested the defendant to move into her house, stating that his mother was not in very good health and that she, Julia Norris, desired the defendant to move into the premises so that he would be in a position to look after her, Julia Norris, in the event that anything should happen to the defendant's mother. That she and the defendant's mother were then living on the third floor of said premises. That about one week before June 24, 1920, she requested the defendant to secure a lawyer and have a deed prepared by which she would give the premises in question to the defendant, reserving to herself a life use. That the defendant, in compliance with this request, had a deed drafted by an attorney, who called at the home of the defendant, on the second floor of the premises, as the defendant had moved therein on June 1, 1920, at the request of Julia Norris, and that the attorney read to her the deed and explained to her its terms. That she explained to the attorney that the conveyance was being made to the defendant in consideration of his agreement to care for her, pay her debts at the time of her death, look after and pay for her burial, and have masses said for the repose of her soul. That Julia Norris at the time of executing the deed was of sound mind, and capable of understanding the nature and effect of the conveyance, and made the same without the defendant exercising any undue influence over her, and that there was a good and sufficient consideration for the conveyance, and that the deed was executed in the consummation of an intention long existing and often expressed. That at the time the deed was executed the intestate had six nieces and nephews living in Ireland, children of a deceased brother and sister, and that she was on friendly terms with these nieces and nephews. That at the time of the execution of the said deed the defendant and his mother were the favorite relatives of Julia Norris. That the mother of the defendant died in October, 1920, and immediately thereafter Julia Norris, in compliance with her agreement with the defendant, came to live with him, and he gave her a room to herself and furnished her with meals from October, 1920, to March, 1923, when she died. That during this time the defendant charged her nothing for board and lodging. That this board and lodging was furnished by him in compliance with his agreement with her at the time of the execution of the deed. That at all times while the defendant lived on the premises he paid rent of $18 per month to Julia Norris; that all rents paid by other tenants were paid to her, and, if these rents came into the hands of defendant, they were immediately turned over to Julia Norris. That after the death of Julia Norris the defendant attended to her burial from his own apartments, paid for her burial, paid for masses, and paid all of her remaining debts. That Julia Norris during the years that the defendant knew her was physically and mentally well and had no serious sickness, and did not during any of this period of time have the services of a doctor until 4 months before her death. That the conveyance to the defendant was at the suggestion of Julia Norris and was her own voluntary act, and that she in entering into her agreement with the defendant for her care was providing for her own welfare.

During the trial ...