78 Mich. 17 | Mich. | 1889
Complainant brought his bill against Mary A. Nolan, his wife, and his son, Edward E. Nolan, and his daughter, Annie A. McPherson, to obtain redress
As he sets up and shows, he was, in 1880, owner of lot 1, on the Chene farm, on the corner of Chene and Earned streets, in Detroit, of considerable value, varying in estimates from $3,000 to $5,000, as also of some other property. By various arrangements with members of his family, he has been deprived of all his property. He ■claims that this result was brought about by fraudulent means, and seeks relief to restore him to his rights in whole or in part, as practicable. Lot 1 has by these transactions become vested, one-half in fee and the other half for life, in his wife, Mary Ann Nolan; the reversion of the southerly half being in Annie A. McPherson, as the abstract of title in the case indicates, as made up when the bill was filed. The court below -dismissed the bill, and he appeals.
The case is one of peculiar hardship, and complainant’s equities are very strong. It is not pleasant to deal with family dissensions, and it is not desirable to spread upon our records any more than is necessary to dispose of the controversy. As far as necessity requires it, the reference will be made.
In June, 1880, complainant and his wife had lived together a good many years, and had two children in early manhood and womanhood, who had been afforded means of education of an excellent character, at considerable expense, and who about that time were married. The wife owned a lot on Orleans street, worth $4,000 or $5,000, improved in part by complainant’s means, from which some revenue was derived, and the husband owned the lot on Chene street, and other property near by. He had been industrious and saving, and some help had been given by the wife in earning money for joint account, but we think not to any large extent. Hp to that time
The land was conveyed to Edward Nolan, and he gave back a life-lease to his father and mother jointly. The deed' contained an expressed consideration of $500. How far this was nominal and how far real is not easy to determine, and is perhaps not now necessary to decide. The father was evidently attached to the son, and soon after spent some $500 or more in building another house on the property conveyed. As this lease was a joint one to husband and wife, and did not come within the rules applicable to tenants in common, the husband’s common-law rights -as head of the household were important. This lease was not recorded, being unacknowledged. It was subsequently certified as acknowledged by the justice who witnessed it. Thereafter it was, as we think very clearly shown, kept in- Mrs. Nolan’s custody, and ultimately, if not always, practically kept out of complainant’s control.
In March, 1881, complainant testifies he was induced
It is claimed that his temper was cantankerous and provoking, and that he made his misfortunes himself. It is probable that he became exasperated, and it is not strange that he showed unpleasant dispositions. But the record does not show, except by some testimony which is not harmonious with circumstances, that so long as he kept control of his own property there was any such extreme ugliness or anything unusual. That he labored and saved for his family is shown clearly, and there is nowhere any evidence that he was selfishly disposed against them. But, if their ■conduct was such as he claims, it would have required a degree of humility and patience beyond any legal requirements to submit to it with equanimity.
As soon as he was apparently cut off from his legal
On that occasion he ostensibly settled, on the terms-that he should receive from Edward §400 cash, and provision for his comfortable sustenance for life, and he-released all his estate for life or for years in Edward’s-north half of the premises, — a release that was evidently deemed important in spite of the assertions of the witnesses that it had long before been given up. There was. no Avritten evidence of his wife’s agreement to give him part of her Guoin-street property in exchange for the-south half already deeded to her. This alleged settlement was on March 15, 1883, and it requires notice. The wife was not brought into it, except as getting some-advantages.
On that day, in pursuance of the negotiations then held, a written agreement was sketched out, whereby Edward and Mrs. McPherson were to pay complainant. $400, and keep him, at his choice of either of their homes, and give him a comfortable home and support for life, or, at his option, to secure him a' home at St.. Mary’s Hospital for life in the same way. This paper,, drawn up in pencil, was objected to because he did not-wish to have Mrs. McPherson in it. Her name was-struck out, without any other change, and it was finally
It is claimeil for the' defense that in all his dealings he was fully advised and had his interests looked after. If, however, he was ever so honestly advised into a transaction fraudulent in law and fact, as he claims this to have been, that may absolve his advisers, but it will not necessarily relieve the parties who got the advantage of him, and who very possibly, if not probably, managed to mislead everybody.
Certain facts stand out very unpleasantly in this arrangement. Why he objected to Mrs. McPherson's name in the papers does not fully appear, but he might very well have been advised that her signature would
But the contract was otherwise illusory. It appears to us, although there is some dispute, that on that occasion it was known that the old man could not live at Edward’s, and that the refuge at St. Mary’s was what he would choose. Edward’s wife was not disposed to treat him pleasantly. Under these circumstances, the suggestion that he then knew he would not be received at St. Mary’s is incredible. It also appears it was undoubtedly in some way impressed on him that he could go there, and stay there if he obeyed the rules. The steps almost immediately taken to get the property transferred from Edward to Mrs. Nolan were strong indications of the fraudulent purpose of the mother, and of the fraud or weakness of Edward, and the haste to record the deeds is significant. The result of this settlement was that ■complainant became stripped of all his property, and his wife got control of it for herself and her daughter, and he got nothing but $400, which was much iess than the value of its previous use, with an impracticable contract, vague in character, and purely personal, which secured him no home or support, and gave - him only an urisecured claim for damages, which was contested as soon as set up.
No amount of plausibility can exonerate Mrs. Nolan and Edward from the guilt of scheming to absorb the complain
It would do no injustice to put back the whole title in complainant. But we are inclined to confine relief to a moderate provision. Complainant will be entitled to a reconveyance of the north half of lot 1, on the Ohene farm, being the property he conveyed to Edward in the first instance, which, for reasons appearing in the record, we shall require to be joined in by all the defendants, and the decree in the meantime to stand in lieu of a conveyance. But in case defendants shall prefer to secure him by adequate security, to be approved by Judge Reilly, in the sxxm of $1,500, and to be executed within 30 days, with or without personal liability, such security may stand in place of the said reconveyance. It shall provide for the payment of $500 within a year from the date of this decree, and the balance in foxxr equal yearly installments, without interest until after each shall become due. Complainant to recover costs of both courts.