BLAIR v. RICHARDSON
2016 OK 96 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute requiring a separate judicial proceeding to establish legal incompetency can be applied retroactively to restore the competency of an individual who was automatically deemed incompetent under a prior, repealed law. A presumption of undue influence requires both a confidential relationship and active participation in the preparation of the conveyance, which is not established by mere familial assistance.
Facts:
- In May 1966, Mabel Grigsby (grandmother) was ordered by a court to be admitted to Eastern State Hospital for mental health treatment.
- Under the governing statute at the time, 43A O.S. 1961 §64, this admission automatically rendered Grigsby legally incompetent without a separate competency hearing.
- Grigsby was released in July 1966, her outpatient status ended in 1974, and she was never hospitalized again.
- Following the death of her only child (the mother of Pat Blair and Gayle Richardson), Richardson, who lived in the same town, began helping her grandmother Grigsby with errands like shopping and paying bills.
- Grigsby told Richardson that she wanted 'everything' to go to Richardson and her children.
- Richardson inquired about deeds at a courthouse, obtained a deed form from an office supply store, and drove Grigsby to an abstract company.
- On January 23, 1987, Grigsby executed a deed conveying her real property to herself and Richardson as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
- Grigsby died in November 1987.
Procedural Posture:
- Pat Blair sued Gayle Richardson, Troy Richardson, and Mellon Trust in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, to void a deed and impose a constructive trust.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, found in favor of Richardson, ruling that the grantor was legally competent and that the deed was not the result of undue influence.
- Blair, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the grantor lacked legal capacity to convey the property because her competency had never been judicially restored.
- Richardson, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma for a writ of certiorari.
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 the enactment of 43A O.S. 1986 §1-105, which requires a separate judicial proceeding to establish incompetency, retroactively restore legal competency to an individual who was automatically deemed incompetent upon admission to a mental health facility under a repealed statute, and is a subsequent property conveyance by that individual void due to undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
No, the conveyance is not void. The enactment of 43A O.S. 1986 §1-105 retroactively restored the grandmother's legal competency, and the deed was not executed under undue influence. The court reasoned that although statutes are generally applied prospectively, retroactive application is appropriate here to fulfill the legislature's intent to provide due process and protect the rights of individuals hospitalized for mental health treatment. The old law, which automatically declared the grandmother incompetent without a separate hearing, contravened these policy goals. Therefore, the law in effect at the time of the 1987 conveyance, which required a separate competency proceeding, governed, and the grandmother was legally competent. Furthermore, no presumption of undue influence arose because Richardson and her grandmother were not in a confidential relationship; Richardson had no control over her grandmother's financial or legal affairs, and their relationship was one of familial affection, not fiduciary dependence. Richardson's actions—obtaining a form and providing transportation—did not constitute 'active participation' in the preparation of the deed, as she did not direct or alter its substance.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that legislative changes aimed at enhancing due process protections, such as requiring a formal hearing for incompetency, can be applied retroactively to restore rights that were summarily removed under older, repealed statutes. It establishes a strong precedent for interpreting statutes in a way that furthers broad public policy goals, even without explicit retroactive language. The ruling also reinforces the high bar for proving undue influence in familial contexts, distinguishing between lawful influence arising from affection and gratitude, and unlawful influence that requires a showing of a fiduciary-like relationship and substantive involvement in the transaction.
