Carpenter v. Speer, A-21-511

In 2003 Carol Carpenter bought 40 acres (house + outbuildings) and alone held title and mortgage; she paid the mortgage from Social Security while her son William Speer and his wife Theresa Bitterman lived there.
After Carpenter moved out she asked Speer and Bitterman to pay rent; a 2017 lease set rent at $925 (later reduced to $775); appellants made one full payment in Aug 2017 and sporadic payments thereafter, accruing large arrearages.
On March 12, 2018, Carpenter signed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to Speer; she later testified she believed she was signing automobile paperwork, was unwell (diabetes/medication/dizziness), did not intend to convey title, and only learned later her name was off the deed.
Register-of-deeds staff prepared the quitclaim form; Bitterman testified an employee warned Carpenter three times that signing would remove her control, but Carpenter disputed that recollection.
Carpenter sued (May 2019) to set aside the deed for undue influence, fraud, mistake, and incapacity, and claimed breach of contract and unjust enrichment; the trial court set aside the deed for undue influence/fraud/mistake and awarded $7,115 for past rent and $11,100 for unjust enrichment (total $18,215) plus monthly accruals until vacancy.
Appellants appealed, arguing the trial court disregarded relevant evidence and made unsupported assumptions in finding undue influence/fraud.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 12, 2018 quitclaim deed should be set aside for undue influence (and relatedly fraud/mistake)	Carpenter: deed procured by undue influence; she was unwell, misunderstood the document, trusted Speer, and never intended to transfer title solely to him	Speer/Bitterman: no unlawful control or coercion; Carpenter willingly executed documents and the court ignored evidence showing a meeting of minds	Court affirmed: sufficient evidence (clear and convincing) of undue influence; deed set aside and title restored to Carpenter; appellate court defers to trial judge on credibility and does not reach fraud/mistake issues because undue influence is dispositive
Whether trial court improperly disregarded or excluded relevant evidence / made unsupported factual assumptions	Carpenter: N/A (she argued evidence supported relief)	Speer/Bitterman: court viewed evidence through a critical lens and failed to consider appellants’ version, so findings were unsupported	Court rejected appellants’ claim: de novo review finds record supports trial court’s credibility determinations and its finding of undue influence; no reversible error

Benell v. Ross, 19 Neb. App. 514, 808 N.W.2d 657 (appellate court reviews equitable actions de novo but may give weight to trial judge’s credibility choices)
Mock v. Neumeister, 296 Neb. 376, 892 N.W.2d 569 (elements and clear-and-convincing burden to void a transfer for undue influence)
In re Estate of Hutton, 306 Neb. 579, 946 N.W.2d 669 (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)