Willis v. Baker
| Decision Date | 20 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 9717 |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 466,75 Ohio St. 291 |
| Parties | Willis Et Al. v. Baker, Guardian. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Action by wife - To declare void a conveyance on ground of undue influence - Burden of proof on the plaintiff - Conveyance of lands by wife to husband - Will of husband in favor of devisees - Husband retains possession during life - Death of testator - Subsequent devise of lands by wife - Law of wills - Evidence.
1. In an action by a wife, or a guardian in her behalf, to have declared null and void a conveyance of her lands on the ground that she was induced to make such conveyance by undue influence, or on the ground that she was not conscious of her act in executing the same, and it appears from its face that it was duly executed and acknowledged in the manner and form prescribed by the statute, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish one of said grounds by clear and convincing proof, and a mere preponderance of the evidence in its favor is not sufficient.
2. On the trial of said action, it appeared from the evidence, that in December, 1900, the wife owned fifty acres of land and that her husband owned ten acres immediately adjoining; that they were of advanced years and childless; were in ill health, and had been considering and contemplating a testamentary disposition of their lands to certain nephews and nieces, and a foster daughter, and for that purpose secured the advice and services of a justice of the peace who informed them that to carry out their plan, it was necessary for the wife to convey her lands to the husband in order that he might dispose of all the lands by his will, and such deed was drafted by the justice, and she was assisted in signing her name thereto, which deed was duly witnessed, and a certificate of acknowledgment made thereon by the justice in conformity to the statute. Thereupon, as a part of the same transaction, the will of the husband was prepared, by the terms of which he devised all the lands to said nephews and nieces and foster daughter, and this will was executed according to the forms of law, and each of said instruments was then delivered to the husband with instructions by the justice to have the deed recorded and the will deposited with the probate judge; but the husband retained possession of the same without record during his life, and at his death they passed into the custody of the wife or widow. The will was after- wards probated by order of the probate court. The foster daughter who claimed to have been present when the deed and will were executed, testified at the trial that the wife was unconscious when her name was signed to the deed, but there was little evidence to corroborate her, and her statements were contradicted by the justice and three other witnesses who were present at the same time. About ten years after the death of the husband his widow, who was then of sound mind and memory, also made a will in which she recalled and recited the execution of her said deed and her husband's will, and the substance of their contents, and in which she also recited the purpose for which they were executed, and that she desired to carry out said purpose by her will, and then devised the same lands to the same persons named in the husband's will.
Held That in declaring the deed of the wife null and void on such evidence, and in quieting her title to the fifty acres against the provisions of the husband's will, the court disregarded the above rule requiring clear and convincing proof, and its decree should be set aside.
On the 7th day of January, 1904, the defendant in error filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County his petition against the plaintiff in error for a decree quieting the title of his imbecile ward in certain real estate situate in that county. The petition shows the relationship between the ward and the plaintiffs in error, who are nephews and nieces of said ward and her deceased husband, John Greenlee. Other relatives are mentioned, but their names are not material here.
It is in substance alleged that said ward for many years had owned and been in possession of a certain fifty-acre tract of land in said county, describing it, and that prior to December 23 1890, the said ward and her husband were residing thereon, and that the husband owned ten acres immediately adjoining, which was timber land, while the fifty acres belonging to his wife were valuable oil lands; that in the fall of 1890, both the husband and wife, who were old people and childless, were taken seriously ill with typhoid fever, and that it was then thought that John, the husband, would not recover, and that Robert Willis, who had married his sister, wishing to procure said property for his own children, who were nephews and nieces of John Greenlee, to the exclusion of other relatives, urged him to make his will in their favor; that by persuasion and undue influence said Robert Willis procured the consent of said John Greenlee to so make his will, excepting the one-fifth part of which he wished to give to a foster daughter, Mary Duffield; that said Robert Willis obtained the service of M. A. Adams, a justice of the peace, to draw said will, when it was discovered that John Greenlee, as they supposed, owned none of said farm; that the said wife, Anna, was sick with typhoid fever, old and infirm, and she was urged by Robert Willis to deed her land to her husband, stating that her husband wished to make a will before he died, and that he would see ample provision made for her support during life; that said justice of the peace advised both husband and wife that the husband could not make a will of the land unless the wife would convey her fifty acres to him, and being sick, infirm and easily persuaded, and wishing to please her husband, on the 23d day of December, 1890, she acknowledged a deed purporting to convey the entire sixty acres to one George Crawford, and on the same day and at the same time said Crawford conveyed said sixty acres to John Greenlee, the husband; and thereupon on the same day and at the same time said husband executed a will giving his wife a life estate in said lands, and providing that, at her death, the lands should go one-fifth to each of said four children of Robert Willis, and one-fifth to the foster daughter, Mary Duffield. The will gave small sums of money to other relatives.
The petition further says that John recovered from his sickness and then revoked and repudiated said will; that said deeds were never recorded and were never intended to be recorded, or of any effect; that after the recovery of the husband "they were placed in a box and held as relics of a time gone by;" that the husband lived for more than a year after said deeds and will were executed, and all parties regarded them as of no force and effect; that Matthew Willis, who is named as executor in the will, knew of the existence of these deeds and will and treated them as revoked and repudiated so long as Anna Greenlee retained her mental faculties.
It is next averred that the defendant in error, John Baker, was appointed guardian for Anna Greenlee, an imbecile, in 1903, and soon afterwards Matthew Willis, obtaining custody of the will of John Greenlee, caused the same to be probated. He also demanded of the guardian of the widow, Anna, the deeds mentioned, so that the same could be placed on record. This demand was refused by the guardian, and he commenced this action to have the deeds declared void and the title to the land quieted in his ward.
The plaintiffs in error answered, admitting the various ties of relationship described in the petition, and that prior to the 23d of December, 1890, the wife, Anna, owned the fifty acres and the husband ten acres as alleged in the petition, and that the lands were of the character described; the conveyances executed are admitted, also the execution of the will and its provisions are admitted, but the answer denies all persuasion, undue influence, lack of knowledge and mental incapacity of Anna, at the time she signed the deed.
By way of cross-petition, the defendants likewise assert the ownership of the lands by the husband and wife--fifty acres being her property and the ten acres adjoining being the property of the husband; that John Greenlee, having possession of said deeds, neglected to have them recorded, and that at his death, his widow, Anna, kept said deeds among other papers of her deceased husband, and that when Baker became her guardian in 1903, said deeds came into his possession, and that he wrongfully refuses to have them recorded, and refuses to deliver them to the defendants, now plaintiffs in error, that they might have them placed of record. The prayer of the cross-petition is for an order requiring Baker to deliver said deeds to the defendants and for other equitable relief.
The court of common pleas found and rendered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the circuit court found for the guardian, and quieted the title of his ward in the premises described in the petition.
That court made a statement of facts which will be noticed with other facts in the opinion.
Error is prosecuted here to reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
Messrs. McConica & Dwiggins and Messrs. Snyder & Snook, for plaintiffs in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities:
Dille et al. v. Woods et al., 14 Ohio 126; Bristo v. Wright, 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 1419; Hill v. Supervisor of Road District, etc., 10 Ohio St. 621; Thatcher v. Heisey, 21 Ohio St. 668; Commercial National Bank v. Wheelock, 52 Ohio St 534; Eureka, etc., Insurance Co. et al. v. Baldwin, 62 Ohio St. 363; Dean v. Yates et al., 22 Ohio St. 389; Powers v. Armstrong et al., 36 Ohio St. 358; Baldwin v. Snowden et al., 11 Ohio St. 203; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial