Vossen v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 17 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 31791,31791 |
| Citation | 39 Wn.2d 906,239 P.2d 558 |
| Parties | VOSSEN, v. WILSON et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
James M. Ballard, Seattle, for appellant.
Harper, MacDonald & Hoague, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action for cancellation of a deed, on the ground of undue influence exercised by the grantees upon the grantor. The trial court found in favor of the grantees and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the grantor appeals.
Mrs. Albertine Vossen, a widow, owned a duplex residence in Seattle consisting of an upstairs and a downstairs apartment. She lived in the upper apartment and had, for a period of sixteen years, rented the lower apartment to Frank C. Wilson and Teresa Wilson, his wife. During that time their relationships were most cordial and there apparently was genuine affection on both sides, evidenced by many acts of kindness and helpfulness.
Mrs. Vossen had two sons, one living in Seattle, who was a paralytic and who had been given a house by his father; the other son, Werner, lived in California but visited with his mother at least once every year. Mrs. Vossen had expressed the view that, since the son living in Seattle had already received a home through his father, on her death Werner should receive the house in which she was living.
The rent the Wilsons were paying was quite low (forty dollars a month for property with a rental value of from sixty to seventy-five dollars). They had from time to time endeavored to buy the property, but Mrs. Vossen had not wanted to sell. The testimony of the Wilsons was that about a week prior to May 2, 1950, they reached an agreement with Mrs. Vossen whereby she agreed to sell them the place for six thousand dollars, with a fifty-dollar down payment, the balance to be paid at the rate of fifty dollars a month, with interest at five per cent on the unpaid balances, Mrs. Vossen to reserve the right to occupy the upstairs apartment as long as she lived. An additional consideration, as expressed in the agreement signed May 2, 1950, was the care and affection which the Wilsons had given her for sixteen years and which they agreed to give her during her lifetime. (Mrs. Vossen, however, was to 'furnish her food and personal requirements.')
The testimony of the Wilsons is corroborated by three young lawyers, one of whom, employed by the Wilsons, consulted with Mrs. Vossen to ascertain her views and desires and prepared the agreement, deed and mortgage. He, with the other two, was present when the agreement was signed by Mrs. Vossen and the Wilsons, the deed was executed by Mrs. Vossen, and a mortgage to secure payment of the purchase price was executed by the Wilsons. The deed and mortgage were immediately filed for record by that lawyer.
The reasons for the presence of the other two lawyers when the documents were executed were that one had come to take the necessary acknowledgments (the lawyer who had prepared the documents not being a notary) and the other happened to be riding to his home with the one who took the acknowledgments. They are agreed that Mrs. Vossen read one copy of the agreement while the lawyer who had prepared it was reading it aloud, and that, when he read too fast, she slowed him down. They are agreed that the transaction was fully explained to her and they were all satisfied, from her comments, that she understood it and that it was what she wanted.
The lawyer who prepared the papers prepared a will for Mrs. Vossen which she executed a week later. There is also evidence that she told friends about the transaction and expressed her pleasure with it.
The trial judge, who observed Mrs. Vossen on the witness stand some eight months subsequent to the transaction complained of,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Estate of Lewis
...grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court, Binder v. Binder, 50 Wash.2d 142, 309 P.2d 1050 (1957); Vossen v. Wilson, 39 Wash.2d 906, 239 P.2d 558 (1952); and (2) when highly unreasonable consideration is coupled with other inequitable incidents. Binder v. Binder, supra. The......
-
Tecklenburg v. Washington Gas & Elec. Co., 31731
...Wash.2d 101, 120 P.2d 527; Parris v. Benedict, 28 Wash.2d 817, 184 P.2d 63; Thilman v. Thilman, 30 Wash.2d 743, 193 P.2d 674; Vossen v. Wilson, Wash., 239 P.2d 558. Keeping in mind that mental competency is presumed, and that the evidence to establish mental incompetency, fraud or undue inf......
- Karniss v. Department of Labor and Industries
-
Binder v. Binder
...own motives, his acts are his own acts, not those of another.' Parr v. Campbell, 109 Wash. 376, 186 P. 858, quoted in Vossen v. Wilson, 39 Wash.2d 906, 239 P.2d 558, 560. By her own testimony, the respondent did not believe the appellant's statement that her son Joe would, if she continued ......