Anderson v. Anderson
620 S.W.2d 815, 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4017 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed given in exchange for a promise of future support can be cancelled for fraud if the grantee accepted the deed with no intention of performing the support obligation at the time of the transaction.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1970, Jewell Esther Anderson executed a will devising her home property to her son, Frank Bostick Anderson.
- Another son, Charlie Anderson, negotiated with Jewell's granddaughter, Altha Miller, for Altha to move and care for Jewell in exchange for the property.
- By late 1972, prior to the deed's execution, Altha Miller had determined she could not fulfill the support obligation due to her own family and financial situation and had expressed these reservations.
- On June 29, 1973, Jewell Anderson, relying on the promise of care, executed a deed conveying the property to Altha Miller for the sole consideration of "adequate care and maintenance" for the remainder of her life.
- Altha Miller received the executed deed by mail but never provided any support to her grandmother, nor did she inform her grandmother that she had no intention of performing the obligation.
- On July 1, 1975, Altha Miller conveyed the property to William Wade Anderson, another of Jewell's sons, for no consideration.
- Jewell Esther Anderson died on March 12, 1977, without ever receiving the promised care.
Procedural Posture:
- After Jewell Esther Anderson's death, her will was admitted to probate as a muniment of title in Sabine County, Texas.
- Frank Bostick Anderson, the devisee under the will, filed suit against William Wade Anderson and Altha Miller in the trial court.
- The suit sought to rescind and set aside the deed from Jewell Anderson to Altha Miller on the grounds of fraudulent procurement and failure of consideration.
- The defendants filed an answer claiming the support provision was a covenant, not a condition subsequent, and denying the allegations.
- After a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment cancelling the deed.
- William Wade Anderson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's adverse judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a grantee's promise of future support, made without the intent to perform, constitute sufficient fraud to justify the equitable remedy of cancelling the deed?
Opinions:
Majority - Summers, Chief Justice
Yes. Cancellation of a deed is the proper remedy when a promise of support, which serves as consideration for the conveyance, was fraudulently made with no intention of being performed at the time of execution. While mere failure to perform a covenant of support does not warrant forfeiture, an exception exists for fraud. Intent not to perform may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the promisor's subsequent conduct. In this case, Altha Miller had already decided she could not perform the support obligation before the deed was executed. Her silence upon receiving the deed, knowing it was predicated on a false promise, amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation, especially given her position of trust. By retaining the deed and later conveying it, she adopted the misrepresentation as her own, justifying the equitable cancellation of the instrument.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the fraud exception to the general rule that a breach of a covenant in a deed does not void the conveyance. It establishes that a promise of future support made with a present intent not to perform constitutes fraudulent inducement, allowing for the equitable remedy of rescission. The decision highlights that fraudulent intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including a party's silence when there is a duty to speak. This precedent provides a crucial protection for grantors, particularly the elderly, who convey property in exchange for promises of care, by allowing their heirs to reclaim property when that promise was deceptive from its inception.
