Court Opinion

ID: 9671611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:40:20.223155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:24.308514
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant first objects to a part of a quotation in the opinion, supra, from 57 Am. Jur. section 371, as follows: “Intent to deceive the decedent is an essential of fraud avoiding a will, in the absence of any element of undue influence,” claiming that it violates section 108, Title 7, Code. Sections 107, 109, 110, 111 and 112 are all on the same subject and define fraud and deceit.
The facts constituting fraud must of course be alleged and be sufficient to that end. Barksdale v. Davis, 114 Ala. 623, 22 So. 17; Ellis v. Crawson, 147 Ala. 294, 41 So. 942.
*36But the question here is what facts are sufficient. The opinion in this case states that certain grounds of demurrer to pleas 7 and A, which set up fraud by Paul Hornaday, raise the point that he is not alleged to have had knowledge of the falsity of the representations or that he made them with intent to deceive, whereas section 108, supra, is satisfied in that respect with an allegation that they were “made by mistake and innocently, and acted on by the opposite party”. The opinion approves the judgment sustaining the demurrer to these pleas. They were clearly subject to other grounds pointed out in the opinion, as will be here shown.
It is declared in the opinion that pleas 7 and A undertake to set up “positive or actual fraud,” implying that such is the nature of the fraud in the absence of undue influence necessary as a defense to an application to probate a will. It is contended on this rehearing that the principle asserted conflicts with that feature of section 108, supra (copied above), and that the statutory definition of fraud should control. The statute to that effect first made its appearance in the Code of 1907, along with other provisions declaratory of the common law. Hudson v. Moore, 239 Ala. 130, 133(9), 194 So. 147, We think that feature of section 108 is an effort to enact a principle of constructive fraud. The same principle is frequently stated without reference to the statute. Hagood v. Knight, 257 Ala. 64, 57 So.2d 616; Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried, 218 Ala. 684, 119 So. 685, which quotes from Ball v. Farley, 81 Ala. 288, 1 So. 253. The Fried decision was rendered long after section 108, supra, had been inserted in the Code of 1907, but did not refer to it. The Ball case, from which the Fried opinion quotes, was rendered long before the statute was effective.
Constructive fraud at common law is the breach of a legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of the moral guilt, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate public or private confidence, or to inspire public interest. It usually arises from a breach of duty where a relationship of trust and confidence exists. Neither actual dishonesty nor intent to deceive is an essential element of constructive fraud. 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 2, pp. 211-213. At common law, therefore, whether the false representation, not known to be false but innocently made, is sufficient to justify vacating the instrument induced 'by it, depends upon the existence of a legal or equitable (not merely moral) duty to tell the truth. If the parties are dealing at arms’ length and no confidential relations exist or other duty owing to know and tell the truth, innocence and good faith in making a false representation though acted on is not a fraud.
When no legal duty exists the false representation must be knowingly or recklessly made. Einstein v. Marshall, 58 Ala. 153. It is there said to be different when the question arises between the seller and buyer of property. In such case the seller should restore the ill-gotten gain, and as there pointed out: “A representation, however, honestly believed to be true by the party making it, is not, independently of the duty cast on him to know the truth, a good cause of action, although it may prove to be untrue”.
With reference to representations by a vendor to his proposed vendee as to land involved in the sale, a duty exists to know as well as to tell the truth. Harton v. Belcher, 195 Ala. 186, 70 So. 141; Tillis v. Smith Sons Lumber Co., 188 Ala. 122, 65 So. 1015; Shahan v. Brown, 167 Ala. 534, 52 So. 737.
The quotation in the opinion, supra, in this case from 57 Am.Jur. 270, requires in such a will contest actual fraud resulting from the fraudulent intent “in the absence of any element of undue influence”. We take that to mean in the absence of circumstances which make it the duty in law to know that what he represents is the truth. That quotation cites In re Estate of Newhall, 190 Cal. 709, 214 P. 231, 28 A.L.R. 778; Gockel v. Gockel, Mo.Sup., 66 S.W.2d 867, 92 A.L.R. 784. See, also, Gittings v. Jeffords, 292 Mo. 678, 239 S.W. 84. They declare the rule to be as stated.
This Court in Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627(10), 24 So. 374, asserted the principle of fraud in a will contest as requiring deliberate false representation and deception. *37To the same effect are Thompson on Wills, 3d Ed., section 141; 1 Page on Wills section 179.
In such a will contest there must be made a false statement of a material fact intended to be acted on and known to be false and which was a material inducement to the execution of the will, in reliance on the truth of the representation, or, instead of being known to be false, the statement must be made under circumstances making it the duty in law of the declarant to know and tell the truth as when the duty arises by reason of confidential relations.
We do not find fault therefore with the opinion in this case, as suggested by counsel upon rehearing, in that it means to assert that a plea of fraud as a defense to an application to probate a will must show a positive or actual sort of fraud and not merely constructive fraud, as provided in section 108, supra, and the common law, in the absence of any element of undue influence or confidential relations, stated in the plea to exist between the testator and the declarant.
Pleas 7 and A, now under consideration, do not allege a false representation of facts in such clear terms as to justify an application of the principle of fraud on any theory. They are subject to that feature of the demurrer which pointed out the fact that the facts attempted to be alleged are but indefinite conclusions, and so vague and uncertain as not to be sufficient on which to predicate fraud of any sort.
We have considered the other contentions made in the briefs on application for rehearing, but they do not seem to require discussion and are not well taken.
The application for rehearing should be overruled.
The foregoing opinion on rehearing was prepared by FOSTER, Supernumerary Judge of this Court while serving on it at the request of the Chief Justice, under authority of Title 13, section 32, Code, and was adopted by the Court as its opinion.
Application for rehearing overruled.
All the Justices concur.