Title: Roberts v. Coffey, Administrator
Citation: 198 Kan. 695, 426 P.2d 30
Docket Number: 44,853
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: April 8, 1967

198 Kan. 695 (1967)
426 P.2d 30
ALBERT H. ROBERTS, Appellant,
v.
HARLEY A. COFFEY, Administrator dbn, cta, of the Estate of Charles T. Roberts, Deceased; HELEN ROBERTS MAY, MARLENE ROBERTS, Natural Guardian of Kim Leslie Roberts, and KIM LESLIE ROBERTS, A Minor, Appellees.
No. 44,853

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 8, 1967.
Frank G. Theis, of Arkansas City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Earle N. Wright, of Arkansas City, argued the cause, and Ted M. Templar and Tom Pringle, of Arkansas City, Grant H. Cole, of Winfield, and Ralph W. Gilbert, of Angleton, Texas, were with him on the briefs for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, J.:
The action was one to enforce performance of an oral contract to devise and bequeath the plaintiff all of the property of his parents existing at their death. The plaintiff has appealed from that part of the judgment denying specific performance of the contract upon the ground performance would be inequitable.
As preliminary, it should be noted the decedent executed his last will and testament on August 5, 1952, and named the plaintiff as executor. Following the decedent's death, December 6, 1960, the plaintiff petitioned for admission of the decedent's will to probate and he was appointed executor. After serving in that capacity some ten months as hereafter noted, he petitioned to be discharged as executor, filed an accounting, and was discharged on November 28, *696 1961. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff appealed from the order of the probate court admitting the decedent's will to probate upon the ground he lacked mental capacity when he executed his will, which contention was denied by the district court, and that judgment was affirmed by this court in In re Estate of Roberts, 192 Kan. 91, 386 P.2d 301.
Shortly before the running of the nonclaim statute (K.S.A. 59-2239), the plaintiff filed his petition for allowance of demand against the decedent's estate based upon the oral contract that he would receive all of his parents' property existing at their death. Upon the order of the probate court, the case was transferred to the district court for trial pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2402a and b.
Issues were formed by appropriate pleadings and the case was tried by the district court which made findings of fact and conclusions of law. All of the parties to the litigation accept those findings of fact, and the plaintiff has incorporated them in his brief as his statement of facts pertinent to the points relied upon as required by Rule No. 8 (b) 2. (194 Kan. XVII.) In reality, the case comes to this court as if presented upon the parties' stipulation of facts, and since the detailed findings of fact of the district court and its conclusions of law set forth the decisive facts, outlines the issues and the grounds for the judgment rendered, this court adopts the findings of fact and incorporates the same as the basis upon which to consider and decide the case. The findings of fact and conclusions of law read:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On April 19, 1966, judgment was entered in harmony with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
At the outset, we are not confronted with the question whether the evidence established the contract; the district court concluded it was established by clear and convincing evidence. The plaintiff contends that conclusion of law No. 2 denying specific performance is not supported by the findings of fact and that when considered in their entirety, they require a reversal, entitling him to a decree of specific performance of the contract.
Do the findings establish a sufficient performance by the plaintiff to satisfy the demands of equity and good conscience, or should he be denied the remedy and relegated to the position of attempting to prove monetary compensation based on his own valuation of his services under the oral contract? Our many decisions involving cases of this character are to the effect that whether equity will decree specific performance of a contract rests in judicial discretion and always depends upon the facts of the particular case. As a general rule, when a contract to leave property by will has been established by clear and convincing evidence, and there has been performance on the part of the promisee, equity will grant relief, if there is no objection on account of inadequacy of consideration and there are no circumstances which render the claim inequitable. (Anderson v. Anderson, 75 Kan. 117, 88 Pac. 743; Smith v. Cameron, 92 Kan. 652, 657, 141 Pac. 596; Berry v. Davenport, 106 Kan. 393, 188 Pac. 223; Greiner v. Greiner, 131 Kan. 760, 293 Pac. 759; Craig v. Sanders, 133 Kan. 97, 298 Pac. 792; Troutfetter v. Backman, 165 Kan. 185, 193 P.2d 201; In re Estate of Witte, 174 Kan. 360, 255 P.2d 1039, 36 A.L.R.2d 717.)
As indicated, inadequacy of consideration is not involved  the plaintiff was denied relief upon the ground specific performance of the contract would be inequitable. What express findings of the district court, or facts reasonably inferable from findings specifically made, support that conclusion? We find none. On the contrary, the district court concluded the plaintiff was not estopped from making his claim by reason of his acts and conduct in connection with the decedent's estate, and that the remedies he pursued were not inconsistent.
The detailed findings of fact clearly establish that what the plaintiff contracted to do was of a peculiar, intimate and personal nature. *702 He changed his mode and place of living, gave up his freedom of action as an experienced and employable salesman and became an apprentice farmer in the depression days. He was 31 years of age when the contract was entered into in the summer of 1928, and it was performed according to its terms by the parties until late November, 1952, a period of more than 24 years which included the lifetime of the mother, Stella Roberts, who died in 1935. No contention is made the plaintiff did not stay on the farm and take care of his parents  the findings are that in sickness and in health, the plaintiff provided his father with good care until he had a "mad spell" in November, 1952, and left the farm. At that time he was approximately 83 years old. Despite the plaintiff's urging to return home, he declined to do so. Four months later, the father was adjudged incompetent and the record implies the cause of his leaving the farm home was due to an increased acceleration of a deterioration and decline in his mental and physical condition, which commenced about the year 1946.
Is the plaintiff to be denied his remedy after long years of service and performance without fault on his part because further performance of the contract was rendered impossible due to the father's mental and physical condition necessitating his being adjudged an incompetent? We think not.
As indicated, the contract was entered into the summer of 1928 and was for the lifetime of the plaintiff's parents. This covered a span of approximately 32 years. No claim is made the contract was not fully performed insofar as the mother was concerned, nor is it contended that during the 24 years the father lived with the plaintiff at the farm home the contract was not satisfactorily performed. It thus appears the crucial period in the litigation which compelled the district court to conclude enforcement of the contract would be inequitable was the eight-year period after the father left the farm home and the events which occurred during that time. During that period the father was adjudged incompetent and the costs of his care and maintenance at the boarding home, the rest home and the hospital were paid from his funds rather than by the plaintiff.
When Mr. Jarvis was appointed guardian of the person and estate of the incompetent father on February 11, 1953, he was subject to the control and direction of the probate court of Cowley County at all times and in all things. As guardian of the person, he had charge of the person of the ward, and as guardian of the estate, he was required to take possession of and manage the ward's *703 real and personal property and to pay the reasonable charges for his support and maintenance from his estate. (K.S.A. 59-1804, 59-2267.) Generally speaking, the guardian of an insane or incompetent person has the right to the custody and control of the person of his ward (25 Am. Jur., Guardian and Ward, § 64, p. 43), and in determining where the ward shall live, the safety and welfare of the incompetent is regarded as a matter of primary importance. (See, Anno. 131 A.L.R., pp. 290, 291.)
During the guardianship, the plaintiff conferred with Mr. Jarvis concerning his father's welfare and visited him regularly at the boarding home. No effort was made by the guardian to return the father to the farm home, presumably because his needs and welfare demanded otherwise, nor did the guardian attempt to disaffirm the contract with the plaintiff. After the plaintiff was appointed guardian in 1957, he placed his father in a rest home, and in May, 1959, the physical needs of his father required that he be placed in a hospital. But the plaintiff, like Mr. Jarvis, was subject to the control and direction of the probate court at all times and was required to pay the reasonable charges for his father's care and maintenance from his estate. Moreover, during the entire period from the time his father left the farm home until his death on December 6, 1960, at the age of almost 91 years, the plaintiff remained on the farm and continued his performance of the contract; he farmed the land, tended the livestock, and produced the income which in whole or in part provided for his father's care and maintenance under the guardianship. Equally important is the fact that during this period the plaintiff accounted for and paid to the guardian the rents and profits on the same basis which existed when the father lived with the plaintiff on the farm.
When the findings are examined in light of all the surrounding circumstances and what is disclosed regarding the relationship of the parties, we think the plaintiff had the right to continue to perform the contract and pay over to the guardian the father's share of the rents and profits. Manifestly, it would be unreasonable to hold the rights of the plaintiff under the contract were forfeited or changed by reason of the father's being adjudged an incompetent necessitating the guardian to pay the costs of his care and maintenance from his estate rather than by the plaintiff. While factually dissimilar, see, Taylor v. Taylor, 79 Kan. 161, 99 Pac. 814, and Smith v. Smith, 109 Kan. 584, 201 Pac. 75.
In denying specific performance of the contract the district court *704 relied upon the rationale of Bahney v. Gross, 135 Kan. 446, 10 P.2d 844. As indicated, whether equity will decree specific performance of a contract rests in judicial discretion and always depends upon the facts of the particular case. The findings here involved are clearly distinguishable from the Bahney case. There, the promisee received compensation in money each month from the promisor. For this and other reasons, we think the Bahney case is not controlling.
The record discloses that the "west place" where the plaintiff lived during most of the period of the contract is the family homestead. He made lasting and valuable improvements to all the real estate, which the district court found to be of the value of $6,500, which fact is often given great weight in decreeing specific performance.
The contract being established by clear and convincing evidence, we are of the opinion the plaintiff cannot be compensated in money, and the record discloses no reason why equity and good conscience should not direct specific performance. Conclusion of law No. 2 is clearly not supported by the findings of fact, and those findings in and of themselves require a reversal of the judgment. The district court is directed to enter a decree of specific performance of the contract as found to exist in findings of fact No. 3.
It is so ordered.
FONTRON, J., dissenting:
My colleagues concede that whether equity will decree specific performance of a contract rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court and depends on the particular facts of a given case. The judicial discretion thus to be exercised is lodged, in the first instance, in the trial court.
It has been our invariable rule that a trial court has wide discretion in exercising its equitable powers, and that its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. (Gillet v. Powell, 174 Kan. 88, 254 P.2d 258, see, also, 1 Hatcher's Kansas Digest (Rev. Ed.) Appeal &amp; Error, §§ 444-465.)
In the present case the trial court concluded, on its own findings of fact, that it would be inequitable to grant specific performance of the contract which it had under consideration. In my opinion, it can not be said that the trial court, in coming to that conclusion, abused the discretion with which it was vested, in view of the facts which it found to exist. To so hold, as I view it, would simply substitute the judgment of this court for that of the trial court, and *705 on facts from which differing conclusions might well be drawn.
In concluding it would be inequitable to grant specific performance of the contract in this case, the trial court relied largely on the decision in Bahney v. Gross, 135 Kan. 446, 10 P.2d 84. Although this court now holds that Bahney is clearly distinguishable from the present case, the difference, in my judgment, is one of degree, not one of kind.
Performance on the part of the plaintiff, in Bahney, was alleged to be for about half the time which elapsed between the making of the contract and the promisor's death. Here, the plaintiff performed his part of the contract for approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the elapsed time. In Bahney, as in the present case, it was argued that the promisor had prevented full performance by leaving the home of the promisee. This contention was answered by the court when it said this fact would not entitle the promisee to specific performance as though he had fully performed, but would entitle him to file a claim against the estate for services.
Factors which the trial court may have had in mind in weighing the equities and in refusing specific performance might well have included the eight-year period during which the plaintiff did not perform the contract, no matter what the reason; that those eight years were the last and doubtless the most demanding years of his father's existence; that during most of those years, the old gentleman was under guardianship, and his son made no effort to bring him home; that for the last four years the claimant, himself, was guardian but left his father in rest homes or in hospitals; that Mr. Roberts always paid his own way, and that his son paid all expenses for his father's care from his father's own funds; that plaintiff asked for and received a generous guardian's fee; that plaintiff petitioned for probate of his father's will and served as executor thereof nearly nine months, for which services, he has petitioned for allowance of a fee.
From these facts alone, all of which were before the trial court as indicated by its findings, I believe the court, without abusing its discretion, might well have considered specific performance to be inequitable. Whether the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for services on a quantum meruit basis is not before the court at this time.
I would affirm this judgment and, for that reason, I respectfully dissent.