Duncan v. Hensley
248 Ark. 1083 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract or conveyance of property is voidable for duress when it is executed under a threat that excites a fear of grievous wrong, such as death or great bodily injury, and is sufficient to impair the party's deliberate judgment and overcome their free will.
Facts:
- Joyce Hensley and Graddy S. Duncan married in 1964 and jointly operated a ranching business, first in Louisiana and later on a 440-acre property in Newton County, Arkansas.
- On June 26, 1968, the couple entered into a property settlement agreement in contemplation of divorce, under which Hensley received sole ownership of the Arkansas ranch.
- The couple's divorce was finalized on August 1, 1968, with the decree incorporating and approving the property settlement.
- On February 4, 1969, Duncan met Hensley at her place of employment.
- Duncan drove Hensley to a remote dirt road and threatened to kill her unless she signed over all her property to him.
- Fearing for her life due to the threat and her knowledge of Duncan's violent past, Hensley accompanied him to a real estate office where she executed a quitclaim deed and a bill of sale, transferring the ranch and other personal property to him.
- After the documents were recorded, Duncan wrote a date on a piece of paper and told Hensley she would be dead if she was not off the property by that date.
Procedural Posture:
- Joyce Hensley (plaintiff) filed a complaint in the Newton County Chancery Court (trial court) against Graddy S. Duncan (defendant) seeking to cancel a deed and a bill of sale.
- The Chancery Court held a trial on the matter.
- The Chancellor found that the instruments were executed under duress and entered a decree cancelling them in their entirety.
- Graddy S. Duncan (appellant) appealed the Chancellor's decree to the Arkansas Supreme Court (this court), with Joyce Hensley as the appellee.
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 former husband's threat to kill his ex-wife if she did not convey her property to him constitute sufficient duress to render the resulting deed and bill of sale voidable?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Special Chief Justice
Yes. A conveyance of property is voidable for duress if procured through a threat of death or great bodily harm that overcomes the grantor's free will. Consent is the essence of a contract, and where there is such compulsion, there is no voluntary consent. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Duncan threatened Hensley's life, and that this threat was direct, real, and sufficient to place her in fear of grievous bodily wrong or even death, thereby compelling her to execute the instruments involuntarily. The court considered Duncan's history of violence as relevant circumstantial evidence establishing the reasonableness of Hensley's fear. In deferring to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, the court affirmed that Hensley executed the deed and bill of sale under duress, rendering them voidable at her request.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the classic doctrine of duress as a basis for voiding contracts and conveyances. It highlights that the court's inquiry focuses on the subjective effect of the threat on the victim's state of mind, making their reasonable apprehension of harm a key element. The ruling clarifies that evidence of the threatening party's past violent conduct is highly relevant to establishing the victim's fear was genuine and justified. By deferring to the trial court's credibility findings, the case underscores the critical role of testimonial evidence in duress claims, which often depend on the conflicting accounts of the involved parties.
Unlock the full brief for Duncan v. Hensley