Son Stole the Linoleum

FACTS:

According to the court, Mrs. O’Grady had "several" children. One of her children, a son named "Harry" still lived across the street from his 80-some-year-old mother. She was weak and easily swayed. Following an accident, she became incapacitated. Fortunately, Harry was nearby and able to help. He began to manage her affairs.

Harry apparently decided that his mother should no longer be swayed by his siblings to deed the property to one of them alone (she had done this twice before; but on both occasions, the deed was not recorded and later withdrawn). According to testimony, "[H]er children could influence her to do anything that they wished." (240)

Harry got his mother to deed the property to him. He then recorded the deed, took his mother’s linoleum off her floor, took some dishes and bedding and left town. His sister, Grace was appointed guardian and brought a suit to void Harry’s deed.

At trial, the court did not set the deed aside on lack of capacity. There was no proof that the mother was incompetent; just that she was easily swayed. Therefore, "Her mental condition becomes important only in connection with the charges of undue influence against her son." (239)

THE DECISION:

The trial court voided the deed on the ground of undue influence, and the appellate court upheld that decision, as follows:

In considering the question of undue influence of Harry over his mother in obtaining a deed to all her property, we must bear in mind: (1) That the judgment rendered was upon a motion for nonsuit where the evidence, in favor of the plaintiff, must be taken as true and construed most strongly in her favor; (2) that a confidential relation of trust and confidence existed between Mrs. O'Grady and her son Harry; (3) that she was of very advanced years, physically incapacitated, uneducated, and easily influenced by any of her children; (4) that Harry was at the time her business adviser; (5) that he received a deed to all her property without other consideration than love and affection, and subsequently recorded it; (6) that thereafter he moved from Perris, taking with him linoleum from the floor of the house and part of his mother's dishes and bedding, leaving insufficient for her use so that the guardian, when appointed, had to replace the articles taken; (7) that the notary who prepared the deed and the witnesses to the mark of Mrs. O'Grady were procured by Harry; (8) that Mrs. O'Grady had no independent advice in the transaction.

We think the facts of this case bring it within the rule announced in Soberanes v. Soberanes, 97 Cal. 140, 31 P. 910, 912, as follows: "There is no doubt as to the principle applicable to cases of this kind. Transactions like the one under consideration are watched by courts of equity with the most scrutinizing jealousy, and are generally held to be presumptively void. They will be set aside upon the discovery of the least fraud, and every presumption ought to be indulged against them. The person who makes the donation and bestows the confidence is not bound to show that any imposition has been practiced upon him. It is sufficient for him to establish intimate and confidential relations with the donee. Some of the cases hold that undue influence is not to be inferred from the relation of parent and child, where the gift is from the parent to the child (Millican v. Millican, 24 Tex. 426); but where the parent is of great age, or is enfeebled by disease, and conveys his entire estate to one child, to the exclusion of other children dependent upon his bounty, the burden is unquestionably upon the donee to show that the gift was made freely and voluntarily, and with full knowledge of all the facts, and with perfect understanding of the effect of the transfer."

O'Grady v. O'Grady (1933) 129 Cal.App. 237, 242.

He stole the flooring . . . .