Opinion ID: 2202363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: of jessie fremont perry

Text: I, Jessie Fremont Perry, of the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, being of sound mind and memory, do hereby revoke any and all former Wills or Codicils by me made, and do make, ordain, publish and declare this my Last Will and Testament. First: I direct that my executors hereinafter named, pay all my just debts and funeral expenses as soon after my decease as conveniently may be. Second: After the payment of such debts and funeral expenses, I give, devise and bequeath to my friend, Rella Moss, Appleton, Wisconsin, my amethyst and pearl ring; I give, devise and bequeath to my friend, Cora Jackson, Muskegon, Michigan, my seal skin coat. Third: All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate of whatever kind and wherever situated of which I may die possessed, I give, devise and bequeath to Russel A. Perry and Phyllis M. Perry, share and share alike, or the survivor of them. Fourth: I nominate and appoint said Russel A. Perry, now connected with Rotary International, to be the executor of this, my Last Will and Testament, without bond. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 30th day of September, A.D. 1947. JESSIE FREMONT PERRY (Seal) Signed, sealed, published and declared by the said Jessie Fremont Perry on the said 30th day of September A.D. 1947, as and for her Last Will and Testament, in the presence of the undersigned, who, at her request and in her presence, and in the presence of each other, have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses thereto, believing her to be of sound mind and memory. SAMUEL A. JACKSON Address 4441 S. Greenwood Ave. Chicago, Ill. PAUL R. PERIOLAT Address 8348 S. Prairie Ave. Chicago, Ill. From the evidence it appears that on or about September 30, 1947, the defendants moved into the house and that Mrs. Perry continued to reside there with them. It appears that very extensive repairs were made to the property by them and that they paid for these items, including plastering, decorating, plumbing, electrical and other repairs in excess of $4000. Likewise, it appears that they have complied with all the other terms of the contract with Mrs. Perry, paying $787 for her final expenses and funeral, and the sum of $250 to the Masonic Crippled Children Hospital. It further appears that she received the care which was provided for in the agreement. The testimony with reference to the mental condition of Mrs. Perry at the time of these transactions is conflicting. Naturally, a person of her age may be allowed to have some peculiarities and yet be able to understand the nature and essentials of a business transaction. A careful review of the evidence presented by the respective parties as to mental capacity leads us to believe that Jessie Perry was mentally competent at the time she conveyed her property to the defendants. The master saw and heard the witnesses and we cannot say that his decision as to mental capacity is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We next consider the question of the fiduciary relationship between Jessie Perry and the defendant Russel A. Perry. The plaintiffs rely heavily upon the fact that Jessie Perry authorized him to enter her safety-deposit box and that he rendered to her many services in the way of paying bills for her and securing nurses and physicians for her. In handling these transactions for her it is evident that she regarded him as trustworthy; however, there is no proof in this record indicating that either of the defendants ever rendered her advice or counsel or that she relied upon their advice or judgment in the transaction of any business. It would appear that in handling the transactions entrusted to him, Russel A. Perry did occupy a fiduciary relationship with Jessie Perry, since in conducting those transactions he could be considered her agent. We have held that the relationship between principal and agent is a fiduciary relation. ( Rieger v. Brandt, 329 Ill. 21.) However, we have stated that the agent is a fiduciary only with respect to matters within the scope of the agency. ( Hickey v. Hickey, 371 Ill. 476.) The question then presents itself as to whether the deeds of conveyance and contract entered into in this case were within the scope of any fiduciary relationship which existed between Jessie Perry and the defendants. Certainly, the transaction was not within the agency relationship occupied by Russel A. Perry, since there is no proof indicating he was ever the agent for Jessie Perry in regard to the sale or disposal of her home or for the repair or maintenance thereof. Therefore, as we stated in Clark v. Clark, 398 Ill. 592, Where a fiduciary relationship does not exist as a matter of law, the relationship must be proved by clear and conclusive evidence. In order to establish a fiduciary relationship with reference to the transactions complained of in this case, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to establish the relationship by clear, convincing, unequivocal and unmistakable evidence which would lead only to one conclusion. Johnson v. Lane, 369 Ill. 135; Neagle v. McMullen, 334 Ill. 168. We have carefully reviewed the evidence and we do not believe the finding of the master that no fiduciary relationship existed with reference to these transactions is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Situations involving that presented by this record occur frequently and it is only natural that when a person arrives at advanced years, and has no close relatives immediately available to assist him, he will rely upon others for assistance. Cases where no complaint is made regarding the transactions occurring between such people until after the death of one of them present a serious problem for the courts, because what at a later time may appear to be grossly unfair was actually a proper transaction between the parties, and in other cases where it appears that the transaction was fair the real truth of the matter may be to the contrary. The evidence in this case indicates that the defendants, upon receiving title to the property, improved the same to the extent of more than $4000. In addition thereto they paid all of the final and funeral expenses of Mrs. Perry and made a contribution to the Crippled Children Hospital, in accordance with their contract with her, which amounted to in excess of $1000. Certainly, if Mrs. Perry had lived for a longer period of time after the transactions occurred, a court would have little doubt or trouble in deciding the matter, but in a case wherein the grantor dies within a relatively short time after such a transaction, it always appears that the other parties to the transaction have benefited unreasonably. The facts in this case indicate that at the time Mrs. Perry entered into this transaction she needed to be cared for and she was not satisfied with the care which she could receive outside of her own home. The evidence as to the condition of her home at that time indicates beyond all question that it was in considerable disrepair and no doubt it would have been very difficult for her to have obtained anyone to come into her home and live there with her under the circumstances of the home at that time. It does not appear from the record that she was able to pay for the repairs or improvements out of her own funds, or that she was able to hire the services of people to take care of her in her home without in some manner at least encumbering the home. The defendants have shown by adequate proof that the transaction was entered into fairly and that Mrs. Perry received adequate consideration for the transfer of her property. The decree of the circuit court of Cook County is, therefore, affirmed. Decree affirmed.