Adams v. SaundersAdams v. Saunders
[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Frank Adams, because of sterling character and keen business ability, had enjoyed almost phenomenal success as a farmer, merchant and banker. In his early life he resided in Jasper, and subsequently removed to Jacksonville, where he became the president of one of Florida‘s largest and strongest financial institutions. In this, as in his other business ventures, he was energetic, able, successful. As a result of his acumen, he amassed a large fortune. Not content with progress which enhanced his personal wealth, he gave of his talents to the State by serving in public office, was on two occasions president of the State Senate.
About twenty years ago, he fell victim to a disease known as paralysis agitans, and because of its ravages retired from active business, save that in a supervisory capacity he maintained
Nat Adams, a bachelor and brother of Frank, was also successful in the business world, and exhibited many of the fine traits of character that were peculiar to Frank Adams. He, too, was rewarded for his industry and acumen by the accumulation of property, said to be worth seven hundred thousand dollars.
Death came to Nat Adams, February 2, 1937. He left no will disposing of his estate, and was survived by his brother, a sister, Mrs. Minnie A. Strickland, and the following children of a deceased sister; W.A. Saunders, Doctor Albert F. Saunders and Julie Saunders Dickerson. Immediately after Nat Adams died, a search was made for his will, but none could be found, and subsequently an administrator was appointed for his estate.
February 6, 1937, Frank Adams and Rubye Adams, his wife, Minnie A. Strickland and A.J. Strickland, her husband, Julie A. Dickerson and R.G. Dickerson, her husband, W.A. Saunders and Albert F. Saunders executed an agreement reciting the belief of the parties that, although Nat Adams died intestate, it was his intention to dispose of his property as the parties therein provided, by to-wit: (1) establishing a trust fund for a colored servant, (2) setting up another trust fund for the upkeep of the family cemetery, (3) making an expenditure for the erection of a wall around said cemetery, and (4) distributing the net proceeds one-half
On May 15, 1937, the same parties executed a confirmatory agreement, ratifying the one of February 6, and setting out that the things which were to be done under the latter had been accomplished.
This is the background of the litigation which is brought here for review.
In June, 1937, a bill of complaint was filed by F. Adams, by his next friend, L.S. Adams, charging that the agreement of February 6 was the result of a conspiracy on the part of W.A. Saunders, Albert F. Saunders, R.G. Dickerson and others to cause Frank Adams to convey his interest in his brother‘s estate at a time when he was mentally incapable of comprehending the transaction and when the will of the conspirators was substituted for that of Frank Adams. By the pleading it was sought to invalidate the instrument providing for the distribution of the estate.
The various defendants answered, and Frank Adams filed his petition in the cause, styling his “next friend,” L.S. Adams, an intermeddler; stating that the bill was filed without his knowledge; charging that the proceeding was “acquiesced in” by all of his children; denying the allegations of fraud, undue influence and his own mental incapacity; and praying for dismissal of the bill.
L.S. Adams, next friend, answered the petition and re-asserted the prayers of the bill.
The chancellor, after taking testimony for about thirty days and hearing argument for two days, dismissed the bill by a very comprehensive decree, which has proven helpful
It seems unnecessary to search beyond the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida to announce the rule by which the evidence shall be weighed in determining whether Frank Adams was mentally incompetent at the time he executed the instruments of February 6 and May 15, and if he was unduly influenced to give away his share of his brother‘s estate. We refer to the opinions in. Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 South. Rep. 292, Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762.
In the case of Rich v. Hallman, supra, the complainant brought suit to set aside a gift made to her nurse, the only consideration for which was that the attendant would remain with the donor as long as the latter lived. It was charged that the transfer grew out of deceit and trickery, and that assignor was ignorant of its nature or legal effect. Placing emphasis on the influence exerted by a young person of alert mind upon one of advanced age, a confidential relationship existing between them the Court said the burden was on donee “to show conclusively that the gift to her * * *” was free of undue influence.
In the latter case (Travis v. Travis, supra), the contest was between heirs of a grantor to invalidate a deed made by an imbecile. The Court announced that:
“* * * The only question presented and argued is whether in view of the evidence, the decree should have been for defendant; the contention being that the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact of the mental incompetency of the grantor to make a valid deed at the time of the execution of the conveyance.” 87 South Rep., text 762.
The rule followed in answer to that question was:
“The presumption is that the grantor was sane, and the
burden of proof upon the issue of her alleged mental incapacity to make a valid conveyance was upon complainants.” 87 South. Rep., text 765. See also Hassey v. Williams, 127 Fla. 734, 174 South. Rep. 9, text page 11.
Applying these rules, it would seem that the bearer of the burden of proof with respect to undue influence would be Frank Adams, but a rather anomalous situation is produced by his repudiation of the act of his next friend in bringing the suit and the issues made by the petition of complainant, himself, and the answer of his representative. Even invoking the rule in its strictest sense and placing upon complainant this burden despite his petition, we cannot conclude that there is not a preponderance of evidence to support the finding of the chancellor that there was lack of this element in the transaction.
In Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 South. Rep. 321, we find at page 332 the following:
“In Howard v. Farr, 115 Minn. 86, 131 N.W. 1071, the Court said:
” ‘To constitute’ undue influence, ‘the mind * * * must be so controlled or affected by persuasion or pressure, artful of fraudulent contrivances, or by the insidious influences of persons in close confidential relations with him, that he is not left to act intelligently, understandingly, and voluntarily, but * * * subject to the will of purposes of another.’
“In Myatt v. Myatt, 149 N.C. 137, 62 S.E. 887, the Court said that, to constitute ‘undue influence,’ it is unnecessary that moral turpitude or improper motive should exist, and if one, from the best motives, having obtained a dominant influence over a grantor‘s mind, induces him to execute a deed or other instrument materially affecting his rights, which he would not have otherwise executed, so exercising
the influence obtained that the grantor‘s will is effaced or supplanted, the instrument is fraudulent.”
The first part of this quotation appears in the final decree.
From the record, it seems that the person nearest grantor, hence more likely to have influence over him, was his wife, nurse and companion, but she could hardly be charged with artful or insidious influence when she joined him in the deed disposing of an interest, part of which she, upon his death would receive. Another grantor, his sister, likewise was conveying her undivided third interest without monetray consideration and in such circumstances that artifice, fraud or deceit could not be attributed to her. These persons, particularly the first, seemed to have enjoyed the confidence of Frank Adams more than those who were actually benefited.
Our study leads us to the conclusion that by a preponderance of the evidence there was no taint of undue influence, and that the transfer was motivated by a desire on the part of Frank Adams and Minnie A. Strickland to do what they thought Nat Adams would have done, had time been given him to make a will. To ascribe to them any other motive does not seem logical. Each suffered a loss of thousands of dollars. The act of Adams was the same, of course, as that of his sister. It would be unnatural to attribute to either the motives of spite or hatred, and we feel no justification for deciding that the nieces and nephews brought about the transfer by undue influence.
The last problem is the one relating to the mental competency of the complainant. According to the announcement of the law on this subject in Travis v. Travis, supra, it must be shown that the mind was in such condition that the grantor could not comprehend the nature of the transaction.
Numerous witnesses, of varied business and professional experience, testified about the mental state of the complainant. A dealer in poultry, lawyers, a merchant, bankers, a salesman, business associates, a masseuse, a circuit judge, personal servants and a gardener related their observations of his actions during periods ranging from several years to comparatively shorter times.
Many physicians gave their opinions of his mental health and the probability or improbability of his comprehension of the transaction here under question. It is noteworthy that much of the testimony supporting allegations of his incapacity was based on hypothetical questions, while the doctors who had attended him very generally agreed that he was mentally fit to understand his action. See Mason v. State Bank of Orlando, 94 Fla. 132, 113 South. Rep. 664.
That complainant was subject to delusions at times, probably traceable to the effects of the drug hyoscine, was established, but the evidence falls far short of preponderating in support of the theory that at the time of the original and confirmatory agreements he did not “comprehend the effect and nature of the transaction.”
Throughout a disheartening physical ailment, he seems to have maintained an interest in affairs of the day, business, the stock market and other topics which engage the attention of well informed men, and at this time, after an era of financial instability that has taxed the most sagacious, and after being physically helpless for nearly twenty years, is possessed of the fortune which he had the ability to accumulate and the wisdom to preserve.
A further discussion of the evidence hardly seems necessary. The application of the principles discussed above in the light of exhaustive briefs and comprehensive argument of counsel, leads us to the conclusion that the chancellor‘s
TERRELL, C. J., and WHITFIELD and BROWN, J. J., concur.
BUFORD, J., concurs specially.
CHAPMAN, J., disqualified.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in what is said in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice THOMAS concerning the phase of this case which involves the question of whether or not Frank Adams was the victim of undue influence and was caused by such undue influence to execute an instrument disposing of property of great value by way of gift to certain nephews and nieces.
The record fails to show the exercise of any influence by anyone who benefited from the transaction. Such influence as may have been exerted was exerted by those whose financial status was in no way improved by the action of Mr. Adams; not is there any reason appearing in the record why those who had the opportunity to influence Mr. Adams should have had any desire to unduly influence him in this regard.
As the second question presented, viz.: Whether or not Mr. Adams possessed mental capacity to determine and act for himself so that his act in this regard would be his valid and binding deed, I can only agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion because of that well established rule that, “Where the findings of the chancellor are supported by the evidence, or where the evidence is conflicting and there is substantial evidence to support the chancellor‘s findings such findings will not be set aside unless the appellant makes it clearly to appear that substantial error was committed by the chancellor in his conclusions, or that the evidence clearly shows them to be erroneous.”
After consideration of the evidence submitted in this case it is my opinion that had the chancellor reached the conclusion that the deed involved was void because of the mental incapacity of Frank Adams, this Court would have been bound by that conclusion and would have been required to affirm such findings in conformity with the rule above stated.
In other words, the evidence is so conflicting in regard to Mr. Adams’ mental capacity that the appellate court is bound to affirm the findings of the chancellor, regardless of the conclusions to which those findings lead.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Dissenting Opinion
I think a rehearing should be granted because the opinion states:
“Applying these rules, it would seem that the bearer of the burden of proof with respect to undue influence would be Frank Adams, but a rather anomalous situation is produced by his repudiation of the act of his next friend in bringing the suit and the issues made by the petition of complainant, himself, and the answer of his representative. Even invoking the rule in its strictest sense and placing upon complainant this burden despite his petition, we cannot conclude that there is not a preponderance of evidence to support the finding of the chancellor that there was lack of this element in the transaction.”
The burden of proof as to undue influence was not on the complainant and the authorities cited do not establish such rule.
The record shows also that the chancellor did not adjudicate the question of undue influence. On pages 4409, et seq., the following appears in the chancellor‘s decree:
“The Court has spent not only hours but days in the study of this record and authorities of law relating to the involved questions. The adjudication of the mental competency of
the defendant, Frank Adams, disposes of the case and makes unnecessary discussion or adjudication of the numerous other questions presented. After a most painstaking study of the record; after spending around a month personally hearing the testimony and observing witnesses; after hearing extensive arguments from able counsel; after reading the voluminous briefs also filed in the cause, the Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant Frank Adams was mentally competent at the time he executed the conveyance in question here, and that he thoroughly understood what he was doing and that he did it in pursuance of his own volition and decision. The record is replete with instance after instance of his transactions of important business matters and important business deals, his discussions of important business matters, his directions and instructions about various details of his business, and all these during the time when the complainant, himself, asserts he was tremendously weak mentally or during the period he was at his worst, and most of it during the time this suit was pending. There is an (old) adage, ‘actions speak louder than words,’ and while it is agreed that Mr. Adams is in a terribly Helpless physical condition, and that because of his long suffering, he has indulged in considerable peculiar conduct, some of it apparently without any reasonable basis, and there is no doubt in the mind of the court that his mentality is not as strong as it was in his vigorous years, particularly so in view of the fact that he has been afflicted grievously from a physical standpoint for around twenty years, still considering the testimony within the purview of the rule laid down by our Supreme Court and giving effect to the many and numerous instances of his conduct which evidence a sound mind, and in view of the further fact that the complainant practically admitted his recognition of his father‘s mental competency by his own dealings with him, the court has come to the firm conclusion that the complainant has not supported the allegations of his bill by preponderance of the proof.”
The burden of proof was not on complainant to establish undue influence in a case of this sort by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, the record shows that if the chancellor may be presumed to have adjudicated the question of undue influence he did so applying an erroneous rule as to the burden of proof.
[NOTE: PUBLISHING ERROR OF REFERENCE AREA.]
[NOTE: PUBLISHING ERROR OF REFERENCE AREA.]
Addendum
After the mandate had been recalled and a rehearing granted in this cause, by order of December 6, 1938, counsel for appellees on January 10, 1939, filed a motion, “to set aside and strike from its records the pretended order entered in said cause on December 6, 1938, whereby (1) the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County was directed to return to the clerk of this Court the mandate theretofore issued in said cause; (2) the extraordinary petition of appellants for rehearing was attempted to be granted; and (3) the cause was directed to be submitted
On March 20, 1939, the Court made the following order in this cause:
“This cause having been submitted to the Court upon motion of counsel for appellees to set aside and strike from its record the order entered therein on December 6, 1938, which motion has been argued by counsel for the respective parties and duly considered by the Court, it is thereupon ordered by the Court that the above styled cause be set down for oral argument on the merits at 10:00 o‘clock A. M., Monday, March 27, instant.”
On June 1, 1939, counsel for appellees filed a motion “to cease reconsidering the said cause of its merits and desist from further reconsideration thereof, to set aside and strike from its records the order of December 6, 1938, made by three judges only of this Honorable Court whereby a rehearing was attempted to he granted, and to return to the lower court the mandate of this Honorable Court heretofore issued.”
One of the grounds of the motion is that “If this Honorable Court should reach the conclusion that the decree appealed from should be reversed, the Court would be without power to enter a decree of reversal since to do so would take the property of appellees — to-wit, the decree appealed from and the rights of the appellees thereunder — without due process of law, contrary to and in violation of
The Court having duly considered said motions filed in this cause on January 10, 1939, and June 1, 1939, it is now ordered by the Court that each of such motions be and is hereby denied because the Court is evenly divided and the
WHITFIELD, BROWN and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, J. J., dissent.
Concurrence Opinion
This opinion deals with the jurisdictional question raised by the motion filed by the appellees on January 10, 1939, to strike the order of this Court rendered December 6, 1938, recalling the mandate and granting the extraordinary petition for rehearing on the merits, which had been filed on October 12, 1928; also the motions recently filed by appellees, on June 1st and 6th, respectively, asking the Court to desist from reconsideration of the cause; all of said motions of appellees being based upon the theory that this Court had lost jurisdiction of the case when the order of December 6, 1938, was entered, by reason of the fact that the Court had theretofore, on October 11, 1938, denied the petition for rehearing, which had been filed during the preceding (January) term, and the mandate had gone down on October 13, 1938, the contention being that this order of October 11, 1938, irrevocably terminated the jurisdiction of this Court.
The writer was very much impressed by the motion filed by appellees on January 10, 1939, and the arguments of able counsel in support of same, and gave the matter considerable study.
The original judgment of affirmance in this case was rendered on March 29, 1938, during the January term of that year. A petition for rehearing was duly filed which remained undisposed of at the end of that term. The Court entered its usual order continuing and carrying over into the June term of 1938 all pending causes and business before the Court which remained undisposed of. So this case was
Under the case of State ex rel. Davis v. City of Avon Park, 117 Fla. 556, 151 So. 701, there would have been no question about the retention of jurisdiction if the order of December 6, 1938, had contained a clause expressly vacating the previous order of October 11, 1938, but I am inclined to the opinion that in spite of this formal omission, the legal effect of the order of December 6, 1938, was to vacate and nullify the order of October 11, 1938. There is considerable reputable authority in support of the proposition that a former order or judgment of a court may be impliedly vacated by a subsequent order or judgment, entered during the same term, that is clearly inconsistent therewith, or that is clearly inconsistent with the continuance in force and effect of the former order or judgment.
The case of Chapman v. St. Stevens Protestant Episcopal Church. 105 Fla. 683, 136 So. 238, 138 So. 630, 139 So. 188, is strong authority for the proposition that, in spite of the fact that an order or judgment may have been rendered and the mandate sent down to the lower court during the
I do not think there can be any doubt about the proposition that a case can be carried over from one term to the ensuing term by the pendency of a petition for rehearing which remains undisposed of. This has been the practice and holding of this Court for many years. The Avon Park case, supra, held that the general rule that the power of a court over its orders and judgments terminates when the term at which they were rendered expires, is modified in that State, as to cases in the circuit court, by the statute permitting the court to entertain and act upon a motion for new trial presented within the statutory period, and as to cases in the Supreme Court by its long established rule permitting the filing of petitions for rehearing within fifteen days after rendition of judgment.
In the case of State ex rel. Davis v. City of Avon Park, supra, a case of original jurisdiction, it was held that where a petition for rehearing was filed during the following term, but within the fifteen days from the date of the judgment which is allowed by the rule for the filing of such petitions, this carried the case over into the subsequent term, in spite
The case of Foster v. Thornton, 125 Fla. 699, 170 So. 459, cannot, in my opinion, be cited as a binding precedent. That case had an unusual history in this Court, but no question of jurisdiction appears to have been raised or discussed, However, as the case has been referred to quite frequently, its unique history is of some interest here. The judgment of the trial court in that case was reversed by this Court on August 10, 1933. Petition for rehearing was filed during that term and continued over into the following term, during which the judgment of reversal was receded from and the judgment of the court below was affirmed on February 9, 1934. After the judgment of affirmance was rendered, plaintiff in error filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on February 27, 1934. Our records show that the mandate went down on March 1, 1934. During that same term the January term, 1934, a second or “supplemental” petition for rehearing was filed, also a motion to recall the mandate and reinstate the cause upon the docket so that the Court could consider the supplemental petition for rehearing. This motion was not disposed of during that term, but was continued over into the June term, 1934, by special order of the Court, and on June 26, 1934, this Court entered its order directing the clerk of the circuit court to return the mandate to this Court. The power of this Court to do this appears not to have been questioned or considered. A second oral argument was, during said June term, allowed and heard on July 31, 1934, and on December
In the case of State ex rel. Davis, Attorney General, v. City of Clearwater, 108 Fla. 635, 146 So. 836, it was held that this Court could vacate its judgment, rendered on rehearing, after the term at which it was entered had expired, where the mandate had not been transmitted to the lower court, upon the theory that jurisdiction was retained by the appellate court until the trial court had been reinvested With jurisdiction; by transmission to it of the Court‘s mandate; that, “there can be no vacuum in jurisdiction.”
A general rule which has support in many jurisdictions is that after a mandate has issued and the term expired, an appellate court ordinarily has no power thereafter to recall its mandate and reconsider, alter or modify its decision, except for the purpose of correcting clerical errors or mere matters of from. But a number of States have held that an appellate court has power to recall its mandate and correct, change or modify its judgment during the term at
I have read all of the Florida cases dealing with this general subject (see cases cited in note below) and I am not convinced that this Court was without jurisdiction to enter the order of December 6, 1938, and I am therefore of the opinion that the motions attacking said order are not well founded, and should be denied.
WHITFIELD and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
Dissenting Opinion
There was no effective final judgment of this Court until the mandate was issued October 13, 1938. The judgment then becoming effective was under the control and jurisdiction of this Court until the end of the then current term and the Court retained the power to vacate or modify it during the remainder of the term.
When the Court is acting or sitting as a body, four or more Justices participating constitute a quorum and affirmative action by a majority of such participating quorum constitutes valid action by the Court.
Concurrence Opinion
I took no part in the consideration of this case until the matter was presented on motion to vacate the order granting a rehearing.
My view was that the court had lost jurisdiction of the cause and that the motion to vacate was well founded. That motion lost by a divided opinion of the Court. Thus, it was necessary to study the merits of the cause. From knowledge
The general rule is that the person alleging that a contract, deed or gift was procured through the exercise of undue influence has the burden of proving that fact. But there is an exception to that general rule, to the effect that where the evidence clearly shows the existence of confidential or fiduciary relations between the parties, the burden of proof shifts, and it then becomes incumbent upon the party who procures the contract or who receives the deed or gift, to show affirmatively that the transaction was entered into fairly, openly, voluntarily, and with full understanding of the facts. See Black on Rescission of Contracts, Section 253, and 12 R. C. L., 972, both of which authorities are cited in Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292. As was said in 12 R. C. L. 972, “Where a confidential relation existed between the donor and the donee at the time of the gift, it is generally considered to be presumptively void, and the burden of proof is on the donee to show the absolute fairness and validity of the gift, and that it is free from the taint of undue influence, and this rule is the same at law as in equity.”
Thus the burden of proof as to the bona fides and fairness of a transaction of this nature does not shift until the party alleging its invalidity has first shown the existence of confidential or fiduciary relations, or that there had been brought to bear upon the donor a dominant and controlling influence in behalf of the donee. The exception above noted to the general rule was dealt with very ably and clearly in Rich v. Hallman, supra, and in Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 172, 105 So. 32, and its application formed the basis of those decisions, which are quite familiar to the bench and bar of this State. The opinions in both these cases were written by the present Chief justice. Thus in Rich v. Hallman, supra, it was said:
“In view of the age and infirmity of the donor, the confidential relation existing between the donor and the donee, the influence shown to have been exerted over the donor by the friends of the donee and by the donee herself and in view of other facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, we feel impelled to hold that the duty was on the donee to show that the assignment of the note and mortgage brough in question was bona fide and that it was not secured by undue influence, deceit or other improper means.”
As I understand the able opinion rendered by Judge Adams in connection with his decree in this case, he did consider this question of undue influence and reached the conclusion that the evidence did not show undue influence, and that the only serious or meritorious question presented by the pleadings and the evidence was the question of the mental capacity of Frank Adams. In the beginning of
Judge Adams also dealt with the question of the alleged influence of Mrs. Frank Adams upon her husband in business matters, and held that the testimony of Mr. Walton “dissipated that charge.” He also discussed the attitude of the children of Mr. Adams, other than Mr. L.S. Adams, who filed the bill as next friend and against whom no charges of undue influence were made), and the attitude of the Saunders children; also, that of W.H. Walton and Clarence Smith, sons-in-law of Frank Adams, and acquits them of anv charge of bad faith or of trying to take advantage of Mr. Adams.
The opinion of the chancellor shows that after taking testimony for thirty days and listening to the arguments of able counsel, he had made a careful study of the evidence in the light of the authorities bearing on the case, and his final and conscientious conclusion that “Frank Adams was mentally competent at the time he executed the conveyance in question here, and thoroughly understood what he was doing, and that he did it in pursuance of his own volition and decision,” shows in my opinion, that he considered and adjudicated both the mental capacity of Frank Adams and
As I see it, our previous opinion and decisions affirming the final decree should be adhered to, and the petition for rehearing should be denied.
TERRELL, C. J., and WHITFIELD and THOMAS, J. J., concur.
BUFORD, J., dissents.
CHAPMAN, J., disqualified.