Opinion ID: 1786690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Roberts prove she exercised good faith by clear and convincing evidence?

Text: ¶ 24. This Court has previously stated that the important factors for the appellate court to consider in determining whether the grantee/beneficiary used good faith are: (a) the determination of the identity of the initiating party in seeking preparation of the instrument, (b) the place of the execution of the instrument and in whose presence, (c) what consideration and fee were paid, if any, and (d) by whom paid, and (e) the secrecy or openness given the execution of an instrument. Id. ¶ 25. Roberts and her son had both tried to buy Emma Jane's land on several occasions. With Emma Jane's permission, Roberts's son had put a cabin built by their grandfathers on the land in the 1970's. He stated that it was his desire that the property with which he had been familiar all his life, and on which he had hunted over the years, remain in his family. He testified that he offered to buy the land from Emma Jane, but that she definitely did not want to sell it. He later testified that he never tried to buy Mrs. Wright's part, rather the remaining one-third interest owned by Emma Jane's closest blood relatives in Birmingham, Alabama. Roberts herself testified: I went out there, and it was hot, it was hot as it could be. And I said, `Emma, why don't you sell me this land and let me help you get somebody to put you in a bathroom and things that you need and an air conditioner.' Homan testified, regarding the land, that [e]ver time, Mrs. Mamie Roberts tried to buy it. ¶ 26. Roberts stated that she did not consider Homan capable of caring for himself and that she had arranged for him to be admitted to a personal care home while Emma Jane was in the hospital. Yet at the time of trial (three years later) Homan was still living independently ... even gardening. ¶ 27. Emma Jane's primary concern was that Homan was cared for after her death. Regarding her power of attorney over the Wrights' affairs, Roberts testified that she had believed she might have to sell some of the timber to take care of Homan, because he needed eye surgery. Nevertheless, her attorney prepared documents giving her Emma Jane's timber. In her brief she stated: There was no need for either of them, especially Homan, to own any land beyond the reserved life interest. Additionally, Lee was never paid for his services, nor was anyone ever billed. ¶ 28. Roberts's only evidence of good faith was her testimony that she intended only to do what was in Homan's best interest, since she had promised Emma Jane she would take care of Homan for the rest of his life. This testimony is insufficient to rebut the undisputed evidence to the contrary. ¶ 29. Roberts selected the attorney, arranged for the preparation of the documents in which she was a beneficiary, and attended their signing. Emma Jane was presented the documents while lying sick in her hospital bed. Any consideration given by Roberts was dubious, at best, consisting primarily of an illusory promise to take care of Homan in the future. ¶ 30. Roberts has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she acted in good faith in her dealings with Emma Jane.