Tuttle v. Corey

• Decision Date: 25 May 1923
• Citation: 245 Mass. 196,140 N.E. 249
• Parties: TUTTLE v. COREY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

245 Mass. 196

140 N.E. 249

TUTTLE

v.COREY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 25, 1923.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County.

Suit by Ann Tuttle, by Frank W. Hoit, her conservator, against William H. Corey, to compel an accounting and reconveyance of real estate and personal property, in which George H. Tuttle, individually, and as administrator of Ann Tuttle, and another, were admitted as parties plaintiff. From interlocutory and final decrees in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The case was referred to a master, who found the facts as summarized in the opinion. Defendant's motion to recommit to the master was denied, and his exceptions were overruled, and the report was confirmed. Thereafter on plaintiff's motion the case was recommitted to the master, to hear and report with respect to certain rents, and the value of defendant's occupancy of a house, and of his use of certain personal property. A supplemental report was filed, a motion to recommit was denied, and the supplemental report was confirmed. Final decree was entered requiring defendant to execute a quitclaim deed to the substituted plaintiffs of certain real estate and a bill of sale of personal property to George H. Tuttle, administrator, and ordering him to pay George H. Tuttle, administrator, the amount found due on the accounting.William H. Corey, in pro. per.

S. D. Dlmore, of Boston, for appellee.

PIERCE, J.

This is a bill in equity, brought by a conservator, in behalf of Ann Tuttle, against the defendant, William H. Corey, wherein it is alleged in substance that Frank W. Hoit was appointed and qualified conservator of the estate of Ann Tuttle on December 17, 1919, because of her advanced age and mental weakness. Since the completion of the hearings before the master, Ann Tuttle (the plaintiff) died on April 6, 1921. George H. Tuttle was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of Ann Tuttle; and he, as such administrator, together with himself personally and Willie Warren Tuttle, sons and heirs at law of Ann Tuttle, have been admitted as parties plaintiff to prosecute the action.

The bill alleges that the defendant through fraud and improper influence did on December 7, 1907, secure from Ann Tuttle conveyances of two parcels of land with the buildings thereon, one in South Acton and the oter in Cambridge; that said defendant collected rents from the Cambridge property which he has not accounted for to said Ann Tuttle; that said defendant collected the income of a trust under which Ann Tuttle was the beneficiary, purporting to act under a written power of attorney from her, which he procured through wrongful infiuence and fraud; that Ann Tuttle had money and personal property which she transferred to the defendant by reason of fraud and undue influence practiced by the defendant, who has in no way accounted to her. The bill prays that the defendant be required to account to Frank W. Hoit, conservator, for all money or property received from Ann Tuttle; that he be ordered to convey and pay over to the conservator all properties and money belonging to Ann Tuttle which were improperly procured by him. The answer asserts ignorance of, or denies, all material allegations. The cause was referred to Thomas A. Wiles, as master, ‘to hear the parties and their witnesses, examine their vouchers and accounts and report the facts and such portions of the evidence as either party may request to the court.’

The master duly made report without the evidence and so far as appears, without the request of either party to report the evidence applicable to any issue raised during the progress of the trial. The report of the master gives a review of the lives of the plaintiff and defendant in so far as knowledge thereof tends to throw light upon the conduct of the defendant and his influence upon the action of the plaintiff after February 3, 1905. He finds that between 1894 and 1906 the defendant ‘succeeded in making her believe that he was necessary to her and that his advice was important,’ and that from 1894 to January, 1906, the influence of the defendant upon the plaintiff ‘continued to increase and be more noticeable.’

He finds that on February 3, 1905, the property owned by Ann Tuttle as an individual consisted of a dwelling house and land in Cambridge, valued at about $4,000, which rented for from $35 to $40 a month; the house in which she lived in South Acton (which produced no income) valued at about $2,375; and some cash. In addition to this she was the beneficiary under the trust created by her husband's will, the principal of which amounted to about $12,000 and which produced a yearly income to her of about $400; and also if the income was not sufficient the will provided that the principal might be used for her comfortable support.

On February, 3, 1906, a contract dated February 3, 1905, was drawn between Ann Tuttle and the defendant Corey wherein, among other things, it appears that William H. Corey was to act as ‘general business manager and assistant in everything pertaining to her welfare at said South Acton for a period of six years * * * for the sum of $1,200 per year * * * $100 per month; * * * that the death of either of them occurring prior to the expiration of said term of six years would terminate this agreement.’ As regards this contract the master found upon all the evidence that ‘it appears as a fact that there was no need of a ‘business manager’ as called for by the said agreement, and that such work as she could require from the defendant Corey was in no way sufficient to entitle him to the payment of $1,200 a year for his services.' And further found that her welfare did not require such services at the time and as called for under the agreement bearing date of February 3, 1905; that she did not have sufficient money from her income to pay much more than one half the salary required by the contract; that upon all the evidence, at the time of the making of the contract ‘Ann Tuttle was beginning to show signs of mental weakness and incapacity as indicated by her general conduct toward said Corey and toward her son Dr. Tuttle, and was unduly subject to the influence and control of the defendant Corey’; that the defendant Corey created a place for himself in the life of Ann Tuttle; that he worked on her mind in its weakened state and caused her to believe he was her only friend; he caused her to have ill feelings toward her children, her grandchildren, her brothers and sisters; that he caused her to be suspicious of them and led her to believe that they were trying to impose upon her and get from her her property; that ‘Mr. Corey visited or boarded with Ann Tuttle while she was at the ‘old homestead’ for short periods amounting to about two weeks, and that afterwards when she returned to her home in South Acton in December, 1905, he went to live with her and that he has since continued to live with her for the entire time said house and alone to the date of this hearing except for occasional periods when one grandchild in the early part of the defendant's residence lived there, and later when a young girl about fourteen years of age was brought there to assist about the house'; that this situation much disturbed her family and relatives and they remonstrated with her soon after Corey went to live with her, and told her that people were talking about the impropriety of her living in the house alone with an unmarried man; but she refused to change her position relative to William H. Corey.

It appears from the report that on December 10, 1907, the plaintiff conveyed to the defendant, by two warranty deeds, her real estate in suit in South Action and Cambridge;...