Case Name: Helen Milchman et al., complainants-respondents, v. William Jayson et al., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1943-11-04
Citations: 134 N.J. Eq. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Helen Milchman et al., complainants-respondents, v. William Jayson et al., defendants-appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 165–175

Head Matter:
Helen Milchman et al., complainants-respondents, v. William Jayson et al., defendants-appellants.
[Argued May 21st, 1943.
Decided November 4th, 1943.]
On appeal from a decree in Chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stein, who filed the following opinion:
“Jacob Jayson died intestate February 3d, 1939, seized of a number of parcels of real estate in Newark. He left him surviving as_ his heirs-at-law eight children. The instant matter is a suit brought by complainants for partition. One of the defendants, Louis Jayson, a son, filed answer and counter-claim in which he charges (a) that the complainant Helen Milehman is not entitled to share equally with the remaining children of the deceased because of alleged advances made to complainant in the 1’ifetime of her father; (b) that complainant holds certain real estate in her name which the defendant alleges she purchased with her - father’s money and that such real estate is held by complainant in trust for her father’s estate; (c) that the signature of her mother, Elora Jayson, to deeds purporting to convey to the complainant Helen Jayson certain property was forged and should be set aside and that the mother, Flora Jayson, having predeceased the father leaving a last will and testament in which the mother devised her entire estate to the father, this property should be included in the partition proceedings as part of the father’s estate.
“The issues thus raised are purely factual.
“It is charged in the bill of complaint that the complainant had no means of acquiring any moneys wherewith to purchase property; that she lived at home with her mother and father and that the father was enfeebled by old age and failing health; that the complainant wielded influence over him and dominated him.
“The testimony in so far as it relates to the issues raised in support of the counter-claim came from the lips of members of the family. Quarrels, epithets and what would have amounted to fisticuffs except for outside interference were indulged in the court room both before and immediately after the hearings before me. One of the members of the family who testified had been convicted of crime. All of this, plus their demeanor and conduct on the witness stand and their signals from the audience to witnesses on the witness stand renders their testimony incredible.
“I have not the slightest doubt that the complainant enjoyed the confidence of the mother and father in their lifetime. She remained at home with them and not only cared for them, but as I see the family picture from the evidence, was perhaps their only comfort. Complainant took care of the father’s business, collected the rents from his property, accompanied him to the bank, the lawyer’s office from time to time and went with him wherever it was that he had business to transact, but there is not the slightest evidence to indicate that she attempted to, or did wield any undue influence over him.
“The consideration which the complainant paid for the various parcels of real estate conveyed to her from time to time she was able to pay and did pay from moneys which she withdrew from time to time from various bank accounts in her name. The bank records and the sources from which she obtained the moneys therein deposited were proven to my satisfaction. Some of this money on deposit was $5,252.47 and $2,263.71 in the savings account of the Fidelity Union Trust Company in the name of her mother, Flora Jayson. When the mother died, this counter-claimant, Louis Jayson, made an affidavit on file in the State Inheritance Tax Department in Trenton in which he said:
“ ‘This savings account [referring to the deposits in the Fidelity Union Trust Company] represents an accumulation of gifts made to my sister, Helen Jayson, by my father and mother and members of the family. The gifts of money were deposited in the name of my mother as trustee for my said sister, Helen Jayson. I know of my own knowledge that my mother had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the account. On divers occasions during the past number of years I have presented my sister with various sums of money, which money I turned over to my mother to be deposited by her in the savings account aforesaid.’
“The complainant also had $6,951.45, an account kept by her father in the same bank as trustee for her, which account was started December 12th, 1916, shortly after she was born and which was turned over to her after she became of age on June 16th, 1936. In addition, she had received income from the properties which were given to her by her mother and from the properties which she purchased. The evidence is conclusive that it was from these funds that she was able to and did pay the purchase price for the property which she bought.
“Now as to the property which was conveyed to complainant by her mother in her lifetime. Without going into detail here as to the evidence which led up to this conveyance which clearly demonstrates a legal gift to the daughter, there are in evidence deeds by all of the heirs-at-law reciting these conveyances to the complainant and confirming such conveyances.
“As to the proof of forgery in connection with the deeds made by the mother to the daughter, and as an example of the kind of evidence given in support of that charge and to show how unreliable was the testimony offered and the length to which the witness to the alleged forgery went, the following will suffice: Q. Now, I show you this deed, which'is dated December 7th, 1935, a deed of property in Bradley Beach, from Jacob Jayson and wife to Helen Jayson, and ask you if that is the deed which was used by your sister in forging these deeds? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, I notice that the signature of Plora Jayson to this deed — that there appears to be a blurring of the letters. Can you explain how that got there? A. Yes, sir. Putting it up to the light on the window, it is very difficult to tell at the moment whether this is behind the one you are going to copy onto or in front of it, and at one time it was in front of it and she went right over these letters by mistake. Q. And then what did she do? A. Well, waited for it to dry and put it behind and made the copy again.’ ‘The court: I suppose you told your brothers and sisters about it the next day, didn’t you ? The witness: I did not. The court: Why not? The witness: Well, I was told not to tell anybody about it. I didn’t tell-The court: Are you so low in morals that you would not make known the fact that your sister forged your mother’s name to a deed? The witness: Well, it was not for the purpose of defrauding my brothers. - The court: What was it for? The witness: She said to eliminate all taxes that had to be paid on the property. The court: Then, do-I understand you are willing to enter into a conspiracy with her in order to defraud the state? The witness: Well, that is what we did.’ The witness went on to say that he kept this secret to himself for all these years. This witness, Murray Jayson, also testified that he took the acknowledgment on the deed to a notary public. There was also expert testimony by a handwriting expert that the signature- of the mother to the deed was genuine.
“Lastly I find no support in the evidence of advances in fact, or what could be deemed to be advances in law by the father to the complainant.
“The answer and counter-claim will be dismissed, and there will be a decree for partition of the property described in the bill of complaint.”
Messrs. Kalisch <§ Kalisch, for the appellants.
Messrs. Schotland, Harrison ■& Schoiland, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stein.
The case is purely factual and we conclude that the testimony fully supports the views of the Vice-Chancellor, except the statement that "there was also expert testimony by a handwriting expert that the signature of the mother to the deed was genuine." We find no such testimony in the record. Nor could there be such testimony, for the deeds in question were not produced, there being a dispute as to the person in whose possession the controverted deeds were. Notwithstanding this apparent misstatement, we are of the opinion that the proofs amply support the decree. The decree being supported by the facts, it is unnecessary to discuss other questions Taised.
The decree below will be affirmed.