Trobaugh v. Trobaugh
| Decision Date | 09 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-86-482,C2-86-482 |
| Citation | 397 N.W.2d 401 |
| Parties | Norman C. TROBAUGH, Personal Representative of the Estate of Julia Trobaugh, deceased, Appellant, v. Terry A. TROBAUGH, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Disputed writing was insufficient as a matter of law to convey a life estate in decedent's house to respondents.
Gordon I. Sinclair, Sinclair and Pardee, St. Paul, for appellant.
Alan W. Weinblatt, Weinblatt & Nadler, P.A., St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard, considered and decided by CRIPPEN, P.J., and LANSING and LESLIE, JJ.
Appellant Norman Trobaugh, the personal representative of the Estate of Julia Trobaugh, sought to evict respondents Terry and Genevieve Trobaugh from the former residence of Julia Trobaugh. Respondents countered by claiming that before her death Julia Trobaugh conveyed to them a life estate in her house.
The trial court found that Julia Trobaugh had intended to and did convey a life estate in her house to respondents by execution of a writing dated November 29, 1984. The court further found that Julia Trobaugh was mentally competent at the time she wrote the note. Appellant moved for amendment of the trial court's findings, vacation of judgment, or a new trial. Appellant argued that the disputed writing was ambiguous and insufficient to convey any interest in decedent's house, that the decision in In re Estate of Trobaugh, 380 N.W.2d 152 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) was res judicata as to respondents' present claim, and that hearsay evidence had been improperly admitted. The court denied appellant's motions and this appeal followed. We reverse.
Appellant brought an unlawful detainer action against respondents. Respondents claimed at trial that Julia Trobaugh intended to and did in fact transfer a life estate in her house to them by execution of a signed writing. The parties introduced conflicting evidence as to their relationship with Julia and her intent as to the disposition of her house.
Respondent Terry Trobaugh testified that he had a close relationship with his grandmother Julia Trobaugh. He visited her and helped her cut grass, shovel snow and get groceries. Julia felt close to respondent because he had experienced financial difficulties similar to those suffered by her and her husband. Respondent claimed Julia had said she wanted her house used by a family member in such a financial situation. At that time Julia knew he needed and wanted her house. Respondent further testified that he and his wife Genevieve had several conversations with Julia in which she asked them to come live with her. He indicated Julia was afraid her son Norman Trobaugh would place her in a nursing home. To avoid this she stated that if respondents would live with and take care of her she would give them the house. Respondent testified,
In September of 1984 respondents moved in with Julia Trobaugh, despite the fact that Julia did not sign the contract for deed prepared for her. They still live in the decedent's house. According to respondent Terry Trobaugh, he and his wife cared for Julia after they moved in. Eventually Julia was hospitalized because of problems with her hip. Respondent stated that during visits to the hospital she again manifested the intent that respondents have her house.
Appellant testified that on November 25, 1984, after Julia had been released from the hospital to Harmony Nursing Home, he prepared a letter for Julia to sign. He stated that he explained to Julia that her house needed to be sold to pay her medical expenses and that, consequently, respondents had to move out. The letter directed respondents to move out of Julia's house so it could be sold to pay her medical expenses. She signed a letter that day that read as follows:
November 25, 1984
Because of my injury and hospitalization and having to have 24 hour care I will have to sell my house as soon as possible.
I am sorry, but you will have to move out of my house by December 31, 1984.
I know I told you both you could stay until Spring, but now that is not possible.
I love you both,
(Signature)
Mrs. Julia Trobaugh
(Signature of Sue Koppy R.N. as Witness)
Appellant described respondent Terry Trobaugh's reaction to the letter as angry and threatening. Appellant stated that Julia started to cry at respondent's outburst.
Respondent Terry Trobaugh indicated that the day after he received this letter Julia stated to him that Norman Trobaugh had told her to sign the letter. He testified, "She said she was sorry that she had signed it and that she wanted us to stay there and not to let anybody tell us any different." Respondent further testified that Julia reiterated this intention a day later.
On November 29, 1984 respondent prepared a writing for Julia which she signed. It read as follows:
It is my wish that Terry and Genny Trobaugh be able to purchase my house at 38 W. Hawthorne Ave. As planed (sic) on a Contract for Deed.
It is also my wish that Terry and Genny Trobaugh be able to live at my house untill (sic) the property is sold, or as long as they wish, if they do not intend to purchase.
(Signature)
Julia Trobaugh
______________
It is upon this writing that respondents' based their claim to a life estate in Julia Trobaugh's former residence. Respondents argue that Julia intended to and did convey to them, through execution of the November 29th note, a life estate in her house.
Respondent Genevieve Trobaugh testified and corroborated much of respondent Terry Trobaugh's testimony. Additionally, Julie Trobaugh and Cheryl Wilzbacker, also Julia's grandchildren, testified that Julia had said that she wanted respondents to have her house.
Appellant Norman Trobaugh disputed respondents' characterization of their relationship with Julia Trobaugh and their interpretation of the November 29th letter. He testified that the weekend after respondents moved into Julia's house she complained about their presence there and stated that she wanted them to move out. She voiced a number of complaints, including that respondents were eavesdropping on her telephone conversations and that they were leaving her alone in the house too often. Appellant also testified that Julia complained about respondents' disobedience concerning certain "house rules" and that respondents had not fed her regular meals. Additionally, after Julia received copies of a will and contract for deed, prepared by an attorney, she called appellant. Appellant testified, After finding that the papers were a contract for deed to respondents, appellant advised Julia not to sign them. Julia never signed the will or the contract for deed.
The attorney testified that he had prepared a will and contract for deed for Julia Trobaugh, but that neither were returned to him executed. He also testified that Julia had called him and said that "her grandson had pulled a fast one * * * and that everything was off."
Appellant maintained that Julia Trobaugh did not intend to convey any interest in her house to respondents, exhibited by the letter of November 25th requesting them to leave the house so it could be sold, and that the note of November 29th was insufficient to transfer any interest in the house to respondents. The trial court ultimately found that Julia Trobaugh intended to and did convey a life estate in her house to respondents by execution of the note dated November 29, 1984.
Was the disputed writing insufficient as a matter of law to operate as an inter vivos conveyance of a life estate in the decedent's house to respondents?
Respondents claim the November 29, 1984 note signed by Julia Trobaugh operated as an inter vivos transfer of a life estate in her house to them. They argue that although the note was ambiguous, properly admitted parol evidence established Julia Trobaugh's intent to convey her home. We disagree.
Initially we reaffirm that interpretation of the language of an instrument should be guided by the ascertainable intention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GGG, Inc. v. Samuelson
...is the writing itself, and parol evidence to show that the written contract is incomplete is not competent."); Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 397 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn. App. 1986) ("Parol evidence cannot be received to create an agreement, as opposed to interpreting an existing one."), review denied......
- Jensen v. Jensen
-
Neubauer v. Wiener
...interpretation when interpreting instruments that purport to create, amend, or destroy a property interest. Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 397 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Here, the parties agree that Mr. and Mrs. Neubauer created, in the 1986 contract for deed, a valid property interest f......