Title: Henks v. Panning

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

175 Kan. 424 (1953)
264 P.2d 483
EMMA HENKS, Appellee,
v.
GERTRUDE PANNING and ELMER F. PANNING, Appellants.
No. 39,118

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 12, 1953.
Tudor W. Hampton, of Great Bend, argued the cause and S.R. Blackburn and Jerry M. Ward, both of Great Bend, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Don C. Foss, of Great Bend, argued the cause, and R.C. Russell and Isabel Obee, both of Great Bend, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This was an action by one of two grantees in a joint tenancy deed against the other grantee, and her husband, to require the latter to convey any interest they might have acquired to the real estate in question by reason of such deed. Plaintiff recovered and the defendants appeal.
The case was tried by the court on issues joined by the pleadings which, under ordinary circumstances, this court would not incorporate in its opinion. However, that seems necessary in view of the unusual situation disclosed by the record.
Omitting formal averments, allegations disclosing that the plaintiff and defendants were all residents of Great Bend and its prayer, the petition reads:
Allegations of the answer, excluding those having no bearing on the issues, are as follows:
During the course of the trial the court below overruled the defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and then, after giving consideration to evidence adduced by both the plaintiff and the defendants, rendered judgment granting plaintiff the relief claimed in her petition. Thereupon defendants filed a motion for judgment non obstante and a motion for new trial. When these motions were overruled they perfected their appeal to this court where, under proper specifications of error, they now challenge the judgment; the overruling of their demurrer to the evidence; and the adverse rulings on the motions to which reference has heretofore been made.
Preliminary to discussing what we regard as the issues decisive of this case we are compelled to note that inherent in all errors assigned by the appellants is the basic claim that the appellee, a woman 74 years of age who testified in her own behalf, was a person of unsound mind at the time she was produced for examination; that therefore, under the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-2805, First, she was incompetent to testify; that it was error to refuse to strike her testimony and give it consideration. Resort to the record reveals the trial court made several express statements during the course of the trial, another at the time of the rendition of its judgment, and still another on the occasion of its ruling on the motion for new trial, all to the effect it felt and had the opinion appellee was incompetent. In the face of these statements we are *428 unwilling to say it was proper to permit this testimony to stand or give it weight in arriving at its decision and judgment. However, under the confronting facts and circumstances, it does not necessarily follow, as the appellants contend, that this action on the part of the trial court constituted reversible error.
Thus, and without giving consideration to statements made by the appellee while testifying as a witness, we turn again to the record for the purpose of determining what was before the trial court at the time of its action, assigned by appellants as error, in overruling the demurrer to appellee's evidence. There we find factual admissions in appellants' answer, which we pause to note were entitled to consideration without further proof, in substance to the effect that appellant Gertrude Panning, who was her niece, was given a power of attorney by appellee on May 31, 1951; that while this power of attorney was still in force and effect appellee purchased, and ultimately paid for, the real estate in question with her own funds; and that on October 29, 1951, under and by virtue of the terms of a warranty deed from its former owners, Gertrude wound up with and acquired a joint tenancy title to such real estate without having paid any consideration whatsoever therefor. We also find that two instruments, one being the deed and the other the power of attorney, set forth at length in the petition, were offered and received in evidence without objection as a part of the appellee's case in chief.
When tested by the universal rule (See West's Kansas Digest, Trial, § 156 [2], [3]; Hatcher's Kansas Digest Rev. Ed., Trial, §§ 150, 151), that in ruling on a demurrer a court must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party adducing it, we have little difficulty in concluding that when considered in connection with the appellants' admissions appellee's evidence must be construed as establishing that Gertrude acquired whatever interest she may have in the involved real estate, without consideration, at a time when a fiduciary relationship existed between her and appellee. That, as we understand our repeated decisions, is all that appellee was required to establish in order to withstand a demurrer based on the premise her evidence failed to sustain a right of recovery.
In Smith v. Smith, 84 Kan. 242, 114 Pac. 245, we held:
And in the opinion said:
As early as Paddock v. Pulsifer, 43 Kan. 718, 23 Pac. 1049, we said:
In Coblentz v. Putifer, 97 Kan. 679, 156 Pac. 700, we held:
Later in Hoff v. Hoff, 106 Kan. 542, 189 Pac. 613, the following statement appears:
*430 Still later in Staab v. Staab, 160 Kan. 417, 163 P.2d 418, we said:
For other decisions of similar import wherein the principle announced in the foregoing cases is recognized and applied see Madden v. Glathart, 125 Kan. 466, 265 Pac. 42; Grothaus v. Van Cleave, 125 Kan. 560, 264 Pac. 1055; Overstreet v. Beadles, 151 Kan. 842, 101 P.2d 874.
In passing we should perhaps state that appellants supplied any possible deficiency existing in appellee's evidence, respecting the existence of a confidential relationship and payment of consideration for the real estate, by introducing a purchase agreement, signed by appellee and by Gertrude Panning as her attorney in fact, providing that the real estate in question would be purchased by appellee for a consideration therein named and that upon payment thereof the property was to be delivered to her free and clear of all encumbrances; and by introducing cancelled checks signed "Emma Henks by Gertrude Panning atty in fact" on which appeared notations clearly evidencing the consideration agreed on had been fully paid by appellee. Likewise add that under such circumstances, even if the sufficiency of appellee's evidence was questionable, we would nevertheless be obliged to hold that any error committed by the trial court in overruling the demurrer has been cured and is therefore immaterial. (See Tuggle v. Cathers, 174 Kan. 122, 254 P.2d 807; Lechleitner v. Cummings, 159 Kan. 171, 152 P.2d 843; Wilson v. Holm, 164 Kan. 229, 188 P.2d 899; and numerous other decisions cited in West's Kansas Digest, Trial, § 418; Hatcher's Kansas Digest Rev. Ed., Appeal & Error, § 486, Trial § 167.)
Except as mentioned in the preceding paragraph we have made no attempt to detail the evidence adduced by appellants tending to maintain the burden cast upon them under the rule announced in the foregoing decisions. Before doing so it is proper to note they made no effort to explain or establish any of the facts essential to the maintenance of that burden, which it must be conceded were peculiarly within their own knowledge, by testifying as witnesses in their own behalf and that their failure to do so, absent any satisfactory explanation, raises a presumption their testimony respecting *431 such matters would be unfavorable to them. (Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484, 204 Pac. 747; Donley v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 152 Kan. 518, 106 P.2d 652.)
When carefully analyzed it may be said the only evidence of record tending to uphold the burden to which we have previously referred came from the lips of two real estate agents, namely, one Johnson and his wife, who had the land in question listed and who prepared all papers in connection with the sale thereof, including the deed transferring title to the property to appellee and Gertrude as joint tenants. These persons, who admitted on cross-examination that Mr. and Mrs. Panning first contacted them concerning the purchase of the property, testified in substance that on the date the deal was closed, at a time when all parties to this lawsuit were present, they read and explained the import of the deed to appellee and that after doing so they asked her if that was the way she desired to have the deed made out, to which inquiry she gave an affirmative answer. Obviously this evidence was introduced to show appellee had independent advice. The trouble from appellants' standpoint is that the trial court made express findings to the effect the only advice appellee had on the subject came from members of the real estate firm; that they were acting as agents for appellants in giving it; and that under such circumstances appellee had no free and independent advice. The record discloses some evidence to sustain these findings. Therefore they cannot be disturbed (In re Estate of Johannes, 173 Kan. 298, 245 P.2d 979; West's Kansas Digest, Appeal & Error, § 989; Hatcher's Kansas Digest Rev. Ed., Appeal & Error, § 507) and arguments advanced by appellants respecting what effect contrary findings might have on this appeal need not be discussed or determined.
Re-emphasizing salient factors disclosed by the record, discussed in the opinion, and decisive of the rights of the parties, it can be stated that it appears that Gertrude Panning acquired whatever interest she had in the real estate in question, which was purchased and paid for by appellee, at a time when a confidential and fiduciary relationship existed between such persons; that in the light of evidence clearly establishing that situation equity raises a presumption that the interest thus acquired was brought about by undue influence and the burden was cast upon Gertrude Panning and Elmer Panning, her husband, as the parties benefited by the transaction, to show affirmatively that such interest was acquired in good faith, *432 without unfairness or overreaching, and for a valuable consideration, and that appellants failed to maintain the burden resting up them.
In view of the situation heretofore outlined we have little difficulty in concluding the trial court's decision and judgment, directing appellants to convey their interest in the real estate to appellee and quieting her title therein against them was proper under the facts and the law and should be upheld.
Assuming, as is urged, the reasons given for the trial court's decision were wrong does not warrant or permit a conclusion contrary to that just announced. This court has long been committed to the rule that a judgment which is correct in result will not be disturbed on appeal even though the reasons given by the trial court for its rendition are erroneous. (See West's Kansas Digest, Appeal & Error, § 854 [2]; Hatcher's Kansas Digest Rev. Ed., Appeal & Error, § 433.)
Nor is the judgment to be disturbed and a new trial granted, as appellants insist, because the trial court's action in failing to strike out, and in giving consideration to, appellee's testimony was improper. Based on the facts of record and the law applicable thereto the trial court would have been compelled to render judgment in appellee's favor even if her evidence had been stricken on appellants' motion and given no consideration whatsoever. The rule, by statutory mandate (G.S. 1949, 60-3317) and under our decisions (See West's Kansas Digest, Appeal & Error, §§ 1032 [1], [2], 1170 [1], and Hatcher's Kansas Digest Rev. Ed., Appeal & Error, §§ 509, 522), is that an appellant must show error of the trial court to his prejudice before a judgment will be reversed.
Contentions advanced by appellants in support of their claims the trial court erred in overruling post trial motions, including their motion for new trial, are the same as those heretofore discussed and determined, hence they require no further consideration.
The judgment is affirmed.