Creason v. Creason

WARD, J.,

pro tem.

— Plaintiffs and defendants are the children of W. J. Creason, deceased. On August 17, 1925, W. J. Creason, aged seventy-six years, shortly after becoming blind made and executed a certain deed and entered into an escrow agreement with one J. P. Mandl that upon the death of the grantor the deed should be delivered to defendant Prank L. Creason.

[457]

The first cause of action in the complaint is in the nature of quiet title. The second cause of action and the answer thereto raise issues of incompetency, undue influence, confidential relations, independent advice and want of consideration upon the alleged promise of defendant to take and hold the deed in trust during the life of decedent for his benefit, and after his death to share the property equally with the other heirs. The trial court found for the defendants, Frank L. Creason, the grantee, and Edith Whitaker, a daughter, who filed a disclaimer. From the judgment rendered, plaintiffs appealed.

In appellants’ reply brief, attention is confined to the “three material arguments ... in our opening brief”. The three points referred to are that the grantor was mentally incompetent, that the grantor did not intend the deed of August 17, 1925, to operate as an irrevocable gift, and that the parties mutually agreed to rescind the said deed and the escrow agreement.

There is no proof that defendant Frank L. Creason used undue influence or that he exercised dominion over his father or his father’s affairs. The confidential relations may be referred to as the affection, attention and financial assistance which the defendant Frank L. Creason bestowed upon the father. The question of independent advice, in the absence of evidence of undue influence, plays no part in this case.

(Brown

v.

Canadian Indus. Alcohol Co.,

209 Cal. 596 [289 Pac. 613].) We understand that appellants have abandoned all contentions save those referred to in the reply brief. At any rate, this court approves the trial court’s findings in their entirety.