Court Opinion

ID: 9628647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:27:58.839467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:03.154480
License: Public Domain

IRWIN, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
In my opinion, the judgment in Case No. 38,698, - wherein Maurice C. Wills is defendant in error, should be affirmed; and, the judgment in Case No. 38,697, wherein Conrad Dissing is defendant in error should be reversed.
I am of the opinion there is sufficient evidence to clearly establish that a confidential relationship did exist in addition to the mother and son relationship. Conrad Dissing did not testify and other evidence adduced in his behalf did not refute the testimony that such confidential relationship did exist.
In Schatz v. Wintersteen, 201 Okl. 660, 208 P.2d 1136, 1139, we said:
“The fact that the relationship of father and son existed between the parties is not in itself sufficient to raise the presumption of fraud and undue influence. It is only when in addition thereto a confidential relationship is shown to exist between them that the presumption arises and casts the burden upon the party claiming the benefits of the transaction to' prove the same to be fair and free from fraud. Flowers v. Flowers, supra; Weitz v. Moulden, supra.”
Applying this rule of law I am of the opinion:
(1) That the evidence is insufficient to disclose fraud or undue influence on the part of Maurice C. Wills, or that a confidential relationship did exist between Maurice C. Wills and his grandmother, Gertrude Dissing, which cast upon him the burden of proving the transaction to be fair and free of fraud.
(2) Although the relationship of mother and son did exist between Gertrude Dissing and Conrad Dissing, this is not in itself sufficient to raise the presumption of fraud and undue influence. Since, in my opinion, there was in addition to the mother and son *344relationship, a confidential relationship, the presumption of fraud and undue influence did arise and cast upon him the burden of proving the transaction was fair and free of fraud. In my judgment, he failed to meet this burden.
I therefore concur in that portion of the majority opinion affirming the judgment in favor of Maurice C. Wills, and respectfully dissent to that portion affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Conrad Dissing.
I am authorized to state that JACKSON, J., concurs in the views herein expressed.