The defendant,Īs a result of a conversation she had with her husband on the morning of November 12, 1943, spoke to a nurse at the hospital who called in an attorney. While at a hospital, which he entered in August, 1943, he frequently expressed a desire to consult a lawyer with reference to his property, but he was unable to do so on account of his physical condition. Before her marriage to McOuatt in 1934, the defendant requested him to put the property in both of their names after the marriage, and this matter was discussed between them on four or five occasions up to 1940, but he replied that he would do so as soon as they could go and consult a lawyer. We summarize briefly the findings of the master. The ruling of the master that the burden was upon the defendant to prove that she did not exert undue influence upon her husband was wrong, and there was no error in striking out this portion of the report.
It is our duty to draw our own inferences from those findings. It is not now contended that the master was wrong in finding that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of proving that McOuatt was of unsound mind when he executed the deed, and we need not consider that question.Īll the subsidiary findings of the master upon the issue of undue influence and upon which he based his ultimate conclusion are set forth in his report. They also have appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill. The plaintiffs appealed from an interlocutory decree confirming the report of the master after a paragraph therein had been struck out, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a final decree in their favor, and allowing the defendant's motion to confirm the master's report as modified. This is a bill in equity brought by the three children of one McOuatt to set aside a transfer of real estate made by him to the defendant, his wife and the stepmother of the plaintiffs, on the ground that he was of unsound mind and that the transfer was procured by the undue influence of the defendant. It appeared that the deed in question in the case was dated and signed by the grantor on November 12, 1943, that it bore a certificate of acknowledgment in due form by a notary public of the same date, and that it was recorded before the grantor's death on that date. The suit was heard by Hammond, J., on a master's report. 209, Section 3, a deed of real estate from a husband to his wife, although signed by him, bearing a certificate of acknowledgment before a notary public, and recorded before his death, was of no effect where it appeared that in fact he never made an acknowledgment of it.īILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on January 11, 1944, with a writ of summons and attachment dated December 17, 1943.
#Ny acknowledgment of a conveyance of real property free#
A deed of real estate was not duly acknowledged by the grantor where, after signing it in the presence of a notary public, the grantor did not say anything indicating that he acknowledged it to be his free act and deed, although a certificate by the notary stating that it was acknowledged was attached to it.
In a suit in equity to set aside a deed on the ground that it was obtained by undue influence exerted by the defendant, the grantee, it was error to rule that the burden was on the defendant to prove that he did not exert undue influence.Ī conclusion that there was no undue influence by a second wife inducing her husband to execute a deed of all his property to her a few hours before his death while he was a patient at a hospital was proper on findings showing that the deed was prepared by an attorney and executed by the husband as a result of a request for it by the wife, and that the husband stated at the time of execution that he knew what he was doing and had intended to do it for some time.ĭiscussion by RONAN, J., of acknowledgment of deeds of real estate. 410 SeptemNovemBerkshire County Present: FIELD, C.J., QUA, RONAN, WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.
0 kommentar(er)
