Court Opinion

ID: 9571435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:46.951244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:26.574300
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: In this case the question confronting the court is whether there is any evidence presented in the record to sustain the finding of the trial court. In my opinion there is evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding in favor of the defendant which in turn supports the order canceling the deed conveying the property in question to Elisha Scott, an attorney for Dr. Farmer and Gertrude Farmer at the time the deed was executed.
Referring to Gertrude Farmer at the time the deed was executed, Jenny McClain testified on cross examination:
“Q. Do you think anybody could have taken advantage of this astute business woman?
“A. Yes, they could take advantage of her.”
When this testimony together with all of the other evidence adduced in the case is considered, bearing in mind that Elisha Scott was the attorney for Dr. Farmer and Gertrude Farmer at the time of the execution of the deed in question, it is, in my opinion, sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court in favor of the defendant.
The attorney and client relationship is fiduciary in its nature and a very delicate, exacting and confidential relationship which requires a very high degree of fidelity and good faith. It involves the highest personal trust and confidence. The attorney is bound to discharge his duties to his client with tihe strictest fidelity and to observe the highest degree of good faith. All dealings between attorney and client are closely scrutinized by the courts, and transactions between the two are often declared to be voidable which would be deemed unobjectionable between other persons. The attorney cannot allow his private interests to conflict with those of his client or take any *678personal advantage of, or any benefit from, his client, unless he first advises him to take independent advice. Conveyances which an attorney takes from his client, while the relationship of attorney and client exists, are presumptively invalid or fraudulent. (7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, §§ 94, 95 and 97; 7 C. J. S., Attorney and Client, § 128; and Neihart v. Buek, 50 F. 2d 367.)
For Kansas cases involving the attorney and client relationship see, Yeamans v. James, 27 Kan. 195; Haverty v. Haverty, 35 Kan. 438, 11 Pac. 364; Cunningham v. Jones, 37 Kan. 477, 15 Pac. 572; Holmes v. Culver, 89 Kan. 698, 133 Pac. 164; Wigton v. Donnelly, 122 Kan. 796, 253 Pac. 400; Yeoman v. Morris, 135 Kan. 566, 11 P. 2d 683; and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424, 264 P. 2d 483.
In Henks v. Panning, supra, it was said in Syllabus ¶ 2:
“When it has been established that one person has acquired an interest in real estate, purchased and paid for by another, at a time when a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between them the burden is cast on the person claiming such interest to show affirmatively that it was acquired in good faith, without undue influence, and for a valuable consideration.”
It is respectfully submitted the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
Price, J., concurrs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.