Court Opinion

ID: 9526841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:25:02.277872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:00.572529
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Justice
(dissenting).
“ ‘So reluctant are the courts to ingraft a trust by parol on the legal title to real estate . . . that there is perhaps no better established doctrine than the one which requires a high degree of proof in order to establish the trust by parol evidence.’ ” Knock v. Knock, 80 S.D. 159, 167, 120 N.W.2d 572, 577 (1963). If we dilute the “clear and convincing” evidence requirement so firmly embedded in our case law, for the sake of a dubiously equitable result, we open the door to future cases where our courts will be asked, as here, to impose a trust on realty to rescue a grantor who belatedly decides to rescind an earlier voluntary absolute conveyance of realty. In this case plaintiff intended that his deeds pass fee title. His motivation came not from pressure from his daughters but instead from his desire to avoid certain inheritance taxes and other expense. He was fully advised by his attorney some time after he had last seen his daughters. Grantor in effect asks that his deeds be reformed because he has now decided that he would prefer to retain an interest in the land notwithstanding the inheritance tax.
The issue is whether the parol evidence offered by grantor is “clear and convincing.” This term is well defined in Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324, 134 N.W.2d 777 (1965). Essentially, grantor’s testimony stands without real corroboration. He cannot provide it by what he may have said to a third person out of the presence of his daughters. The fact that his daughters apparently disliked his spouse, and that the daughters failed to collect the first rent due can be accounted for on other reasonable theories. Even though grantor’s health became poor, it seems undisputed that he was fully able to counsel with and understand what his attorney told him. Thus the fact, if it is, that his need for funds increased at a subsequent time is no persuasive proof of an earlier parol agreement.
The “clear and convincing” evidence requirement is extremely important to the rights of all owners of real estate who depend upon their recorded deeds as sufficient proof of title. Enforcement of the requirement would in my view mandate reversal in this case.
I am authorized to state that WOLL-MAN, C. J., joins in this dissent.