Court Opinion

ID: 9754814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:14:55.124532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:58.463900
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I would sustain the findings of fact and the conclusions of the chancellor, who saw and heard the witnesses, to wit, Helen Cwynar, aged 25, whom he described as an attractive scheming girl, occupied a confidential relationship and exercised undue influence on a weak-minded senile, “lovesick” 81 year old man and thereby systemically denuded him in one year of one-third of his property. Cf. McCown v. Fraser, 327 Pa. 561, 192 A. 674. McMillin did not lack testamentary capacity, but I agree that he was in such a weak*657ened mental condition as to be an easy prey for designing persons wbo might want to secure his property. The chancellor who, I repeat, saw and heard the witnesses, found, inter alia, as follows:
“In the case at bar it is clear on the side of Helen Cwynar Tommelleo there was overmastering influence over Mr. McMillin. Gradually she took over control of his life. She entertained him for hours at a time at his old store, then hers. She took every opportunity to visit him Avhere he sat immobilized in the clutter of his widower’s apartment. He fell in love with her. She took over the collection of his Mahoningtown rents, the management of the repairs of his farm property, the collection of his Neshannock Avenue rents, the management of that property, his automobile and his means of getting about. She encouraged his alienation from his family.
“Mr. McMillin told Holland Shaffer at the farm to do anything with reference to the repairs which defendant told him to do and he told Mrs. Dorothy Rogers, his housekeeper, that she would have to do what defendant said or get out.* The defendant told Mrs. Mary Quorto Ticconi that Mr. McMillin liked her so much that he would do anything for her and she told Mrs. Ticconi hoAV much in the way of repairs she was putting on the farm place. Defendant testified in court that ‘for a period of years I had been doing just about everything for Mr. McMillin\ After Attorney Solomon remonstrated Avith Mr. McMillin about his improvident sale to defendant, she in tears caused the old man to call up Mr. Solomon and denounce him for it. While the deal for the drug store property was pending Mr. McMillin kept asking Attorney Lyons not *658when he could get his money but when Helen could get her money.
“The present inquiry relates to 1953. . . . April 17, 1953 was the date of the deed and the $3636 was given to defendant later that year. What was his condition then?
“For this period we have, the valuable opinions of two people who had ample opportunity to observe Mr. McMillin trying to manage his own affairs. They were Alvah M. Shumaker who was his lawyer and Mr..Holland Shaffer who was remodeling his farmhouse. Each expressed the opinion that Mr. McMillin was so weakened mentally that he was apt to become the victim of designing persons.
“Mr. Shumaker’s opinion was based, upon his ob-. servations during a period of about two years during which he acted as Mr. McMillin’s lawyer, only to find himself displaced in 1953 when the deed to defendant was made by defendant’s lawyer and in 1954 when the careful plan to have Mr. McMillin’s property handled by a bank as attorney in fact was set aside, as I have found, through defendant’s influence over the old man.
“Mr. Shaffer’s opinion was well founded. ■ He observed Mr. McMillin’s inability to understand -his own finances, heard the. old man’s baseless, complaint that $8000 had been stolen. from him, was offered $15 • in payment of a bill for $1900 then due, was later.-.offered the gift of a note-signed by McMillin with .the amount blank and observed him turn the management of the remodeling over to defendant.
“Three women who served periods as-housekeeper at the McMillin apartments on Neshannock Avenue are important witnesses, all shrewd and honest women.. Mrs. Helen Reddick began work in 1947 while. Mrs. McMillin was still living and continued until 1950. *659She observed Ms helplessness when confronted with the task of taking over his wife’s property. Mrs. Helen Rogers served from July 1952 to October 1953. She testified as to Mr. McMillin’s confusion about his rents and his erratic and irrational conduct toward his tenants. Mrs. Caroline A. Ulam who worked for Mr. Mc-Millin from April 1954 until the appointment of the guardian in 1955 testified concerning the ‘crazy’ things he did to his tenants, compelling tenants whose rent was paid up to move, nailing up doors against tenants whom he did not like and performing similar irrational acts.”
The chancellor also found that McMillin was completely confused as to the spurious sale and conveyance of Ms drugstore property and did not know how much was due him or when the payment was to be made and “was equally confused as to the payment to defendant of the sum of $3636”. “Mr. McMillin made three statements to show that he still had money coming to him after he had given defendant a deed for the drug store property; one to Mr. Shumaker, one to Mr. Lyon, and one to the court at the time of the guardianship. Admittedly these declarations would not be competent to set aside a written instrument. . . . There is direct evidence that Mr. McMillin was to receive more money for the property than he got. Helen Gwynar stated to the bank both orally and in writing that the purchase price toas not $5000, hut $15,000. In view of this fact the importance of Mr. McMillin’s declarations is at once apparent. The old man was too old, too weak, too susceptible to know precisely what was going on and to protect himself. . . . Mr. McMillin told several people that he expected to marry defendant. She told Holland Shaffer that she could have the farm by marrying the old man. He gave and she received his wife’s diamond ring.
*660“McCown et al. v. Fraser et al., 327 Pa. 561 is a case exactly in point. There the victim was an old [strong-minded and brilliant] woman who became enamored of a young man.”
I would reverse and would affirm on the able and (to me) convincing adjudication of the chancellor, former President Judge Walter Braham.

 Italics throughout, ours.