EDNA HUNTER AND HENRY HUNTER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
CASSIE REYNOLDS MOORE AND JAMES W. COWART, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Edna Hunter obtained a deed from her mother (Ethel Crandall) in exchange for a promise to support her mother for life, but the trial court found the promise was fraudulently made with no intent to perform. The appellate court affirmed the decree setting aside the conveyance, holding the evidence supported relief based on fraud.
The trial court properly set aside the conveyance because evidence established the grantee obtained the deed through fraudulent promise with no intention to perform, meeting the standards for equitable relief. Alternatively, Hunter failed to carry her burden of proving the conveyance was a valid gift free from fraud and undue influence.
“the evidence presented to the Chancellor meets the requirements of Collins v. McKelvain, supra, and supports his decree accordingly”
Establishes that the evidence was sufficient to justify equitable relief based on fraud in the promise of support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEthel Crandall conveyed property to her daughter Edna Hunter on May 23, 1954, allegedly in consideration of Mrs. Hunter's promise to support her mothe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Hunter, who were defendants below, seek reversal of a final decree which set aside a deed executed by appellee Cran-dall.
Ethel L. Crandall is the mother of appellant Edna Hunter. On May 23, 1954, Mrs. Crandall executed a deed conveying certain property to Mrs. Hunter. The complaint alleges that the consideration for the deed was the promise of the daughter that she would support her mother for the remainder of her life. It was alleged that the promise was fraudulently made and the daughter had no intention of fulfilling it. Subsequently, On February 10, 1955, Mrs. Crandall conveyed the same property to an*490other daughter, appellee Cassie Moore, in consideration of a similar promise. Mrs. Moore instituted this proceeding to set aside the prior conveyance to her sister, Mrs. Hunter.
The Chancellor heard the testimony and concluded that the promise by Mrs. Hunter was fraudulently made in order to induce Mrs. Crandall to execute the deed. It was concluded that there had been a total failure of consideration and that the conveyance to Mrs. Hunter should be set aside.
It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence presented to the Chancellor. Although there were conflicts in the testimony, it is apparent from the record that there was adequate evidentiary support for the final decree setting aside the conveyance.
The question of law to be resolved simply was whether the evidence was sufficient to justify equitable relief on the ground that the grantee, Mrs. Hunter, obtained the conveyance by means of a promise to provide for the grantor, Mrs. Cran-dall, but with no intention of fulfilling the promise. Collins v. McKelvain, 138 Fla. 463, 189 So. 655; Cook v. Adams, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 6. On the other hand, if the evidence merely reflected a “change of mind” on the part of the mother, absent any fraudulent conduct of the daughter, then the equitable relief against the conveyance would not be justified. Marguette v. Hathaway, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 648. As pointed out above, the evidence presented to the Chancellor meets the requirements of Collins v. McKelvain, supra, and supports his decree accordingly.
Another aspect of the case is the fact that Mrs. Hunter asserted in defense that her mother had executed the conveyance as a gift without the accompanying promise on her part to provide a home. In asserting this defense Mrs. Hunter assumed the burden of proving each element essential to the validity of a gift. Under the circumstances, she would carry the burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the gift, as well as the absence of fraud and undue influence. 15 Fla.Jur., Gifts, Section 36, page 217. The record on this point sustains the conclusion that the grantee failed to carry this burden.
On either aspect of the case, therefore, the Chancellor was justified in the conclusion that the conveyance should be set aside. The decree to this effect is therefore affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., SHANNON, J., and THORNAL, CAMPBELL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klein v. Witte, 142 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…into evidence of a note not torn into four pieces as was the note in this case. Had the note not been so torn, the burden of proving each element essential to the validity of a gift would have been upon the defendant. Hunter v. Moore, Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 489. It is likewise elementary that when the defendant in an action on a promissory note tenders a plea of payment the burden is on him to prove his plea by a preponderance of the evidence. Click v. Dowd, 1931, 102 Fla. 336, 135 So. 840. The Negotiable…
-
Earls v. Johnson, 172 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ge of their legal rights and of all relevant fact, that the fiduciary knows or should know, and “ ‘(c) these parties are of competent age and understanding and are not subjected to undue influence.’ ” In the case of Hunter v. Moore, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So. 2d 489, in an action to set aside a deed executed by a grantor to her daughter, this court stated: “Another aspect of the case is the fact that Mrs. Hunter asserted in defense that her mother had executed the conveyance as a gift without the accompanying…
Authorities Cited
- Collins v. McKelvain, 138 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1939)
- Cook v. Cora B. Adams (R. Lee Freeman, 89 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1956)
- Marquette v. Hathaway, 76 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1954)