Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

pleatrustwilloverruled
appealpleawillsustainedoverruled

Related Cases

Robb v. Washington and Jefferson College, 23 Bedell 485, 185 N.Y. 485, 78 N.E. 359
View Case »
In re Brown’s Estate, 22 Cal.App.2d 480, 71 P.2d 345
View Case »
Drye v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 4048996
View Case »
Sherrill v. Connor, 107 N.C. 630, 12 S.E. 588
View Case »
People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co., 66 Cal. 155, 4 P. 1150
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pratt v. Carns, 80 Fla. 243, 85 So. 681

Facts

The complainants, Jesse V. Carns and others, sought to have certain deeds declared void, claiming that they were executed under undue influence from the grantee, Mrs. Annie May Pratt, the grantor's daughter. They alleged that Mrs. Pratt manipulated her father into believing that his wife and sons were unworthy of his trust and affection, thereby gaining control over his affairs. The deeds in question were executed without consideration, and the complainants argued that the grantor was deprived of his free agency at the time of execution.

The grounds of the alleged invalidity of such deeds are the undue influence of the grantee charged to have been exerted over the mind of the grantor at the time of their execution and as to one of the deeds it is alleged that no delivery thereof was ever made to the grantee.

Issue

Did the deeds executed by John N. Carns, Sr. to his daughter, Mrs. Annie May Pratt, become void due to undue influence exerted over him?

Did the deeds executed by John N. Carns, Sr. to his daughter, Mrs. Annie May Pratt, become void due to undue influence exerted over him?

Rule

A party seeking to have a deed declared void on the grounds of undue influence must plead the facts constituting such influence, which must be of a character that overcomes the will of the grantor and deprives him of free agency.

A party seeking to have a deed declared to be void and delivered up to be canceled, on the ground of undue influence exerted over the mind of the grantor, must plead the facts constituting such undue influence; the rule of pleading in such cases being the same as in cases of fraud.

Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations in the bill of complaint, noting that the complainants had sufficiently pleaded facts indicating that the deeds were executed without consideration and that the relationship between the grantor and grantee was one that could give rise to undue influence. The court found that the general demurrer should be overruled because the allegations did not negate the possibility of undue influence being present, thus allowing the complainants to present evidence to support their claims.

It may be that the facts constituting the alleged undue influence could be more fully set out, yet, in view of the allegations that the deeds of conveyance were made without consideration, that the grantor and grantee were parent and child, and that undue influence was exerted over the grantor in the execution of the deeds, such statements of ultimate facts or of conclusions not being negatived by the specific facts and circumstances alleged, the demurrer to the paragraphs now under consideration was properly overruled, since on the admissions of the demurrer it does not appear as matter of law that undue influence was not used, and under the allegations a case entitling the complainant to relief may be made by appropriate and sufficient evidence showing that in effect the grantee's will was substituted for that of the grantor in the execution of the deeds.

Conclusion

The court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the eleventh paragraph of the bill, allowing the case to proceed, while affirming the order as to the remainder of the bill.

The order appealed from, in so far as it sustained the demurrer to the eleventh paragraph of the bill, is reversed; otherwise it is affirmed.

Who won?

The complainants prevailed in part, as the court allowed their claims regarding undue influence to proceed, indicating that they had sufficiently alleged facts that could support their case.

The court reversed the order sustaining a demurrer to the eleventh paragraph of the bill, allowing the case to proceed on the grounds of undue influence.

You must be