{ "id": 1653098, "name": "Mathews v. Cothran", "name_abbreviation": "Mathews v. Cothran", "decision_date": "1953-07-06", "docket_number": "5-59", "first_page": "408", "last_page": "414", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "222 Ark. 408" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "259 S.W.2d 504" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "198 Ark. 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1459683 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/198/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S. W. 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ark. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1369413 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/171/0683-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 606, "char_count": 10241, "ocr_confidence": 0.515, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06236406060739449 }, "sha256": "89898430a9203da908fc9af3fcbc45c71d60784a4a3dc83e6af063fdab8b1a95", "simhash": "1:cb680e3dd7d05def", "word_count": 1743 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:42.003901+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Mathews v. Cothran." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nWilliam Mathews\nowned 320 acres in the Ozark district of Franklin county. He was 70 years old and without wife or child when the deed resulting in this litigation was executed. One dollar \u201cand other good and valuable considerations to us in hand paid\u201d were recitals in the instrument dated September 12,1951. The grantee is Mathews\u2019 niece, who is the appellee here.\nOn January 23, 1952, Mathews sued for cancellation. He alleged that the deed was given with the understanding that Lillian would move from California to the plaintiff\u2019s home and care for him during the period of his declining years and impaired health. The beneficiary, he said, had failed to render the contemplated services. On the contrary she had returned to California with her husband and had no intention of complying with conditions that Mathews contended were inducements to the transaction.\nFollowing the trial Mathews died. The cause was revived in the names of Chesley O\u2019Neal and E. W. Pillstrom, devisees under Mathews\u2019 last will.\nIn executing the deed the land was described as being in township nine north when in fact the tract was in township eight.\nThe trial court refused to cancel the deed for failure of consideration, but decreed reformation. Title was vested in appellee.\nMathews testified that the niece he intended (conditionally) to favor was the daughter of his brother, Ira. Ira and the niece and her husband \u2014 all living in California \u2014 had conducted correspondence with Mathews prior to the time the deed was executed. In March, 1950 Mathews named Lillian as sole beneficiary in a will. One of the letters written for Ira by his daughter mentioned uncertainties regarding Lillian\u2019s position in respect of the property, the inference being that the will might he contested.\nMathews testified that after the will was made Lillian and her husband visited with him for about three weeks. This was in October, 1950. When the conple returned to California Mathews went with them and remained for less than a month. His illness was growing progressively worse and he felt that, having spent so many years in the Ozark area, he was better off there. A letter received from Ira (rewritten by Lillian and enclosed with one from her) was dated December 9, 1950. Ira complained that he had not been treated as a brother. He referred to \u201cthat dirty bunch\u201d \u2014 a group composed of individuals \u201cwho didn\u2019t want you to have anything for your work, while taking care of Father and Mother\u201d. The suggestion was that Mathews should \u201cget everything put in Lillian\u2019s name \u2019 \u2019. Mention was made of money in the bank. The comment was: \u201cIf you leave it there you will have to pay income tax \u2014 and it will be plenty. Get wise to yourself and act now \u2014 get things fixed up ... . Later may be too late\u201d.\nIn August, 1951, Lillian\u2019s husband wrote Mathews that he had information indicating that the will would be contested. He mentioned a rumor that Mathews was considering a sale of the property, then added, \u201cBut if it was mine I would sell it at all, because I really like it down there\u201d. [Apparently \u201cwouldn\u2019t\u201d was intended, rather than \u201cwould\u201d].\nIn September, 1951, Lillian and her mother visited Mathews and spent two weeks with him. Mathews says that when they were preparing to leave he told Lillian he would deed the place to her \u201cif they would come back and stay with me\u201d. Whether \u201cthey\u201d refers to Lillian and her mother, or Lillian and her husband, is somewhat obscure; but the witness very definitely stated that Lillian promised to come back and stay with him. There was no objection when Mathews was asked if Lillian paid anything for the deed. He said that she did not.\nShortly thereafter Lillian and her husband and children shipped their furniture from California and moved into the Mathews home. They remained less than four months, returning to California in January. When asked how he treated these relatives during the period they remained with him, Mathews said: \u201cWell, as bad as I was feeling I treated them just as near right as I could \u2014 as good as I could \u2014 but I was sick practically all the time .... They wanted me to go back [to California] with them, and that\u2019s all I can tell you. I wasn\u2019t able. I couldn\u2019t stand it back there because I wouldn\u2019t live long enough\u201d.\nOn cross-examination Mathews readily admitted that the will he executed in Lillian\u2019s favor was a voluntary act, that he loved her at that time and still did, but that she and her husband were non-cooperative while on the farm. They would \u201clie up in bed\u201d during the morning and supplied little if any assistance on the farm: \u2014 \u201cThey wouldn\u2019t help me take care of the cattle, and I told them right at the start that I would have to sell them\u201d.\nLillian\u2019s testimony directly contradicts statements made by her uncle. She accompanied the grantor to Johnson\u2019s abstract office where the deed was made and where the uncle said, \u201cI want the property to be yours today\u201d. Johnson asked if any consideration was to be mentioned and Mathews replied, \u201cThe place is to be all yours today without any consideration\u201d. It was at Johnson\u2019s suggestion that the one dollar consideration was inserted. Mathews left the deed at the recorder\u2019s office, but procured it later and gave it to Lillian when she moved to the farm.\n, Woodrow Cothran, appellee\u2019s husband, was in California when the deed was executed and therefore did not know what transpired between his wife and her uncle regarding it.\nJohnson\u2019s recollection was that when Mathews was asked if any consideration was to be shown in the deed the maker replied, \u201cNo, I\u2019m giving it to her\u201d. The dollar recital was Johnson\u2019s voluntary act.\nLillian returned to California almost immediately after the deed was executed, but shortly thereafter received a letter from Margaret O\u2019Neal stating that Lillian\u2019s Uncle William was ill. After discussing the matter with her husband, Lillian concluded to return to Arkansas \u201cas soon as we could and stay with [Uncle William] until he was better\u201d. Expenses incurred, including the return to California, amounted to $984.\nTestifying further, Lillian said that when she and her family moved to the farm she wanted to build an outside toilet, but her uncle objected: \u2014 \u201cWe wanted to have our cook stove (gas) changed to butane, but he objected. He did not want us to use curtains or rugs. He objected to cutting weeds \u2014 just let them go .... It was impossible to make our home with my uncle, and my husband could not find work\u201d.\nMathews testified that the property was worth $15,000.\nIn a letter addressed to the attorney ad litem explaining her understanding of relationships, Lillian wrote: \u2018 \u2018 There was no agreement made whatever, verbal or otherwise. But I knew he wanted some one with him, although he never said or did I ask\u201d.\nIt is readily understandable that Lillian and her husband\u2014 with their two small children' \u2014 were not satisfied with the rural district into which they moved. Lillian\u2019s husband had been employed by North American Aviation as a drophammer operator. The California environment and their mode of living were no doubt more agreeable to taste and personal contacts and desires than the somewhat drab existence emphasized by Lillian as a would-be homemaker on the farm in Franklin county. Mathews preferred the place to California. To him it was home, with all that the word implied.\nIt is noteworthy that the uncle Lillian pictures as one who acted upon impulses of love and affection to the exclusion of his own right to remain upon the premises did not deliver the deed until the family moved from California. There is no hint that Lillian would have dispossessed the old man. On the contrary she testified that when the deed was being drawn she volunteered the suggestion that a life estate be retained, and that Uncle William replied, in effect, that he wanted to close the transaction as of that date.\nIbis argued that the deed was not subject to reformation, having been voluntarily executed as a mere gratuity, \u201cand lacking in the elements of a contract,\u201d Nelson v. Hall, 171 Ark. 683, 285 S. W. 386; Wells v. Smith, 198 Ark. 476, 129 S. W. 2d 251. But the grantor contended that it was not a gratuity, and that contractual elements were present. If we accept Lillian\u2019s version, there was a gift and reformation would not lie. On the other hand, if we read into the transaction Lillian\u2019s admission that she knew Uncle William wanted some one to be with him, there has been supplied the natural inference that Lillian understood the deed was predicated upon reciprocal duties.\nWe do not find it necessary to decide this question. Our conclusion \u25a0 is that the evidence preponderates in favor of Mathews\u2019 statements that before the deed was executed uncle and niece understood what was expected. Just how this understanding was expressed \u2014 whether in particular words or conduct upon which the grantor had a right to rely \u2014 this is immaterial. The deed was not immediately delivered. Lillian and her family promptly moved to the farm. It is unreasonable to believe that they shipped their furniture and that Lillian\u2019s husband gave up his aircraft job without reason. The conduct is not harmonious with a stay in Franklin county limited to Mathews\u2019 illness then thought by appellee to be of a temporary character. Bather, leaving California was the act of a family making a definite move for a positive purpose; and the record supports the conclusion that life on the farm was found to be irksome and that the uncle\u2019s illness and irritability were more than appellee and her husband had expected.\nThis is understandable and appellee could not be prevented from abandoning her contract. But she could not toss it aside and still receive its benefits unless Mathews\u2019 conduct had the effect of driving them away. Our conclusion is that Lillian made her election, hoping that Uncle William would follow the family to California. That he did not choose to do so has proved unfortunate from Lillian\u2019s material standpoint, for the decree must be reversed with directions to cancel the deed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Marie E. Woolsey, for appellant.", "John J. Cravens, Jeta Taylor and O. C. Carter, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mathews v. Cothran.\n5-59\n259 S. W. 2d 504\nOpinion delivered July 6, 1953.\nMarie E. Woolsey, for appellant.\nJohn J. Cravens, Jeta Taylor and O. C. Carter, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0408-01", "first_page_order": 432, "last_page_order": 438 }