Snokelberg v. Crecelius

DRAPEAU, J. Mrs. Bertha G. Doane died on February 17, 1953, at the age of 84 years. For several years prior thereto, she lived alone in her home in Monrovia, and did her own shopping and housekeeping.

On January 4, 1953, she became ill. She called her . next-door neighbor and asked that the latter send for defendant Irma M. Crecelius. Mrs. Crecelius came to Mrs. Doane’s home that evening. She stayed and, with the help of her husband, cared for Mrs. Doane until her death.

On January 19, 1953, Mrs. Doane executed a deed conveying her home to defendants, reserving to herself a life estate.

Thereafter, on February 7th, she executed a bill of sale of her furniture and personal effects, and also a power of attorney in favor of defendant Isaac Crecelius. All three documents were delivered to Mr. Crecelius.

Mrs. Nelia Snokelberg, a neighbor and friend of Mrs. Doane during her lifetime, was appointed administratrix with the will annexed. Decedent’s will devised her home to her niece, who lived in Detroit.

By the instant action, said administratrix sought recovery of the real and personal property conveyed by the deed and bill'of sale, on the grounds of fraud of defendants and the incompetency of the grantor. And for an accounting.

The trial court ordered cancellation of the deed and bill of sale; quieted title to both the real and personal property in plaintiff administratrix, and gave a money judgment against defendants for the reasonable rental value thereof.

[138]Defendants appeal from the judgment.

Appellants assert that the evidence does not support certain of the trial court’s findings, to wit:

(1) That decedent was “on January 19, 1953, and for some time prior thereto and continuously thereafter until the time of her death, physically infirm and legally incapacitated by reason of her age, physical and mental infirmities from doing any business or making or entering into any contracts whatever.”

(2) That there existed between decedent and appellants during that period “an intimate and confidential relationship” and that appellants procured the execution of the said documents “by taking advantage of decedent’s condition and said relationship” with knowledge of her said “incapacity and infirmity” for the purpose of defrauding her.