Anderson v. Anderson

DORAN, J. The parties hereto are the only children of Charles E. Anderson, deceased, who died intestate on November 20, 1947. The plaintiff, Oscar E. Anderson, was appointed administrator of the estate. On November 13, 1947, the decedent had executed a quitclaim deed covering certain real estate to defendant-appellant Harold Anderson, the validity of which is here in question. The trial court cancelled the deed on the grounds of mental incompetence of the decedent and undue influence on the part of the appellant grantee. Appellant was ordered to reconvey the same and to account for rents collected in the sum of $2,938.21 and for certain personal property. The present appeal is from that judgment.

The sole contention on this appeal is that the evidence of incompetency and undue influence is not sufficient to sustain the findings and judgment in favor of respondent. The [403]respondent relies upon the well established rule that if the record discloses any substantial evidence in support of the judgment, no appellate interference therewith is warranted. It is not claimed that the trial court committed any prejudicial errors in the trial of the case.

As commented on by the trial judge, “The witnesses in the case are partisan. Everyone of them who has testified, including the parties themselves, is a partisan witness.” The trial court was therefore confronted with a serious conflict of evidence involving the credibility of the witnesses, and said: “In the main I am not going to believe Harold Anderson because of the many, many discrepancies in his testimony.” After pointing out the various discrepáneies, the court said: “Now the evidence shows activity on the part of Harold Anderson in respect to this deed. It shows plenty of opportunity for activity and it shows actual activity. It shows that he profited by that activity, or thought he did.” The trial court therefore found that in reference to the deed there was a “lack of intent growing out of the mental incompetence of the deceased,” and that “the deed was the product of undue influence of his son Harold.”

There was evidence that the decedent, born in Sweden, had considerable difficulty with the English language; that in April, 1945, decedent suffered a first stroke of apoplexy, after which decedent’s conduct became increasingly irrational. The decedent completely disregarded O.P.A. regulations, wrecked the plumbing for the purpose of hastening the eviction of certain tenants, refused to procure a doctor for Mrs. Charles Anderson who was in great pain and dying. Contrary to previous habits, decedent refused to comply with various laws, disregarded the care and maintenance of the property, displayed animosity towards various persons, became suspicious of almost everyone, refused to bathe, and in various ways evidenced confusion and disintegration.