Opinion
[No. 69, September Term, 1959.]
Decided November 19, 1959.
CONFIDENTIAL RELATION — Between Mother and Grantee-Son in Deed — Not Established — Sale Not Improvident or Result of Coercion, Even If Such Relationship Had Existed. In a suit by a son to have declared null and void a deed whereby his late mother sold and conveyed farm land to another son and his wife, the Court held that the evidence did not establish a confidential relationship between the grantee-son and his mother, but, on the contrary, showed that the mother was in complete control of her faculties, made gifts to her children as she desired, remarried after the transaction complained of and generally attended to her own property and business affairs. Moreover, assuming, without deciding, that a confidential relationship did exist, there was nothing to show that the sale was improvident or the result of coercion. p. 640
J.E.B.
Decided November 19, 1959.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County (DAY, J.).
Suit by Herman A. Spicer to have declared null and void a deed whereby Ella Mae Spicer, his mother, sold and conveyed farm land to another son, John M. Spicer, and Eula V. Spicer, his wife, the respondents. From a decree dismissing his bill, the complainant appeals.
Affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
J. Glasgow Archer and Harry E. Dyer, Jr., for the appellant.
John E. Clark and Charles H. Reed, Jr., with whom were McNabb Clark and Cameron, Close Reed on the brief, for the appellees.
The sole appellant, the brother and brother-in-law of the appellees, respectively, requests the Court to declare null and void a deed, dated May 11, 1953, from Ella Mae Spicer, his late mother, to the appellees by which she sold and conveyed to them farm land situated in Harford County. The two brothers have a sister, but she failed to join in the suit. The suit is based upon the theory that a confidential relationship existed between the appellee brother and his mother, which placed the burden upon him to show the complete fairness of the transaction with his mother. The appellant has no chance of success. As found by the chancellor below, the evidence simply does not establish a confidential relationship between the appellee brother and his mother. On the contrary, it shows that the mother was in complete control of her faculties, made gifts to her children as she desired, remarried after the transaction complained of and generally attended to her own property and business affairs. Moreover, if we should assume, without deciding, that there were a confidential relationship existing between the mother and son, as was said by Judge Horney, for the Court in Piraino v. Betka, 218 Md. 548, 557, "we find nothing to show that the gift [in this case a sale] was improvident or the result of coercion."
Decree affirmed, with costs.
OPINIONS IN APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER THE POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT