LORETTA LESPERANCE, APPELLANT,
v.
DON E. LESPERANCE, APPELLEE
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.
In this appeal from a non-jury trial in a property dispute, the court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the defendant obtained the plaintiff's property through fraud, deceit, overreaching, and undue influence. The appellate court held that the trial judge correctly applied Florida law governing undue influence in confidential relationships rather than strict contract rescission doctrine.
The trial court correctly applied the law established in Rich v. Hallman and Adams v. Saunders, which holds that when a confidential relationship exists and property is transferred to the person in whom confidence is reposed, the transfer is prima facie void due to the relationship, and the burden falls on the recipient to prove the transaction was made in good faith without undue influence or other improper means.
[1] Where a confidential relationship exists between parties and a gift is made to the donee, the gift is prima facie void due to the confidential relationship, and the law p…
[2] In cases involving a confidential relationship and a transaction between the parties, the burden is on the party in whom confidence is reposed to demonstrate the bona fid…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In view of the age and infirmity of the donor, the confidential relation existing between the donor and the donee, the influence shown to have been exerted over the donor by the friends of the donee and by the donee herself, and in view of other facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, we feel impelled to hold that the duty was on the donee to show that the assignment of the note and mortgage brought in question was bona fide and that it was not secured by undue influence, deceit, or other improper means.”
Establishes the burden-shifting rule in confidential relationships requiring the recipient to prove good faith and absence of undue influence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial judge found that the defendant obtained the plaintiff's property without consideration through fraud, deceit, overreaching, and undue influe…
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 Overreaching cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a non-jury trial in which the trial judge found that the defendant was guilty of “fraud, deceit, overreaching and *860undue influence in gaining possession of plaintiff’s property without consideration. * * * ” The basis of the appeal is that the court failed to apply the law of the rescission of contracts. Appellant holds that law to be controlling upon the facts of this case. In the alternative appellant argues that if the case is one of fraud, then fraud was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial judge correctly found that the law applicable to this case is set out in Adams v. Saunders, 139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312 (1939), and Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292 (1932). In the latter case the Supreme Court of Florida held:
“In view of the age and infirmity of the donor, the confidential relation existing between the donor and the donee, the influence shown to have been exerted over the donor by the friends of the donee and by the donee herself, and in view of other facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, we feel impelled to hold that the duty was on the donee to show that the assignment of the note and mortgage brought in question was bona fide and that it was not secured by undue influence, deceit, or other improper means. Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 So. 321; Nelson v. Brown, 164 Ala. 397, 51 So. 360, 137 Am.St.Rep. 61; Haslinger v. Gabel, 344 Ill. 354, 176 N.E. 340; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506-513, 24 L.Ed. 260, pages 263, 264; 12 R.C.L. 972; Black on Rescission and Cancellation, §§ 249 and 253.
“All these authorities support the general rule founded on public policy that, where a mutual confidential relation exists and a gift is made to one in whom the confidence is reposed, it is prima facie void because of such relation. The law presumes, in other words, when such relation exists, that the gift was obtained by undue influence or other improper means. When persons occupy positions of trust and confidence as did the parties to this cause, they are held to a strict measure of candor in their dealings, and any transactions between them predicated on a grossly inadequate consideration will be viewed as suspicious. Equity raises a presumption against the validity of such dealings, and imposes on the vendee or the donee the burden of showing the good faith and voluntary conduct of the donor or the vendor as the case may be. 12 R.C.L. 972, and cases cited.” 143 So. at 293.
Having determined that the trial judge applied the correct law to the factual situation before him, we find it unnecessary to detail the facts in order to justify the conclusion of the trial judge and this court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…BARKDULL, Judge. After the previous decision of this court in Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App. 1970, 233 So. 2d 859, cert, denied 238 So. 2d 429, Don E. Lesperance instituted an action for partition of the real property owned by the parties as tenants in common. After the partition suit became ripe for final adjudication, Don Lesperance appeared before the trial…
-
Hattie Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ry conduct of the donor or the vendor as the case may be. 12 R.C.L. 972, and cases cited.” This principle was reaffirmed in may subsequent cases. E. g., Adams v. Saunders, 1939, 139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312; Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App.3d, 1970, 233 So. 2d 859. However, in the case of In re Estate of Carpenter, Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 697, our Supreme Court held that where a beneficiary of a will was shown to have been in a confidential relationship with the testator and actively participated in the executio…
-
Lesperance v. Lesperance, 238 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 233 So. 2d 859. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1876)
- Rich v. Isabella Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1932)
- Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1876)
- Adams v. Saunders, 139 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1939)
- Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1925)
- Tittle v. Montgomery Dahm (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)