Ferguson v. Jeanes
27 Wash. App. 558, 619 P.2d 369, 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 2437 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partnership agreement, like any other contract, is subject to the equitable remedy of rescission when its formation is tainted by undue influence, which renders a party's consent involuntary.
Facts:
- John F. Jeanes was Nancy Ferguson's Christian Science practitioner, and the two developed a close romantic and confidential relationship.
- Ferguson placed an extraordinary amount of trust and confidence in Jeanes due to his spiritual role and their personal relationship, making her susceptible to his influence.
- In the spring of 1973, Ferguson decided to purchase an apartment building for herself and asked Jeanes for assistance in locating a property.
- During negotiations for the property, Jeanes began pressuring Ferguson to allow him to join as an equal partner.
- When Ferguson declined, Jeanes became angry, told her she was ungrateful, and stated her refusal violated the tenets of Christian Science.
- Jeanes also told Ferguson she was financially, intellectually, and emotionally incapable of purchasing and operating the property alone, which was the determining factor in her decision to agree to the partnership.
- Ferguson contributed nearly $13,000 towards the purchase, while Jeanes contributed only $2,987.50, promising to pay the remainder later but failing to do so.
- The romantic relationship between Jeanes and Ferguson terminated in July 1975.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Ferguson filed a complaint in a state trial court against John F. Jeanes to quiet title to real property.
- Jeanes filed a cross-complaint seeking a partnership accounting and claiming a one-half interest in the property.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Jeanes had exercised undue influence in the creation of the partnership.
- The trial court entered a judgment rescinding the partnership agreement, quieting title to the property in Ferguson's name, and awarding Jeanes a judgment for his capital contribution plus interest.
- Jeanes (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeals, with Ferguson 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:
Is rescission a proper remedy for a partnership agreement created through the exercise of undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Ringold, J.
Yes. Rescission is a proper remedy for a partnership agreement formed through undue influence. A partnership requires the voluntary consent of all parties, and undue influence vitiates that consent. The court adopts the Restatement of Contracts' definition of undue influence, which occurs when a party in a dominant or confidential relationship uses unfair persuasion to induce a transaction. Here, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Jeanes used his emotional and spiritual influence to overcome Ferguson's will, destroying her free agency. While the Uniform Partnership Act does not explicitly list undue influence as a ground for rescission, it allows for rescission based on fraud and misrepresentation and provides that general principles of law and equity apply in cases it does not cover. Therefore, the equitable remedy of rescission is appropriate to place the parties in the position they were in before the invalid agreement was made.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that partnership agreements are governed by the same formation principles as general contracts, including vulnerability to claims of undue influence. It establishes that the remedies provided within the Uniform Partnership Act are not exclusive and do not preempt a court's ability to apply broader equitable remedies like rescission. The ruling is significant because it protects individuals who are induced into business arrangements by those exploiting a confidential or fiduciary relationship, ensuring that consent must be truly voluntary for a partnership to be valid. This precedent reinforces the court's role in policing the fairness of contract formation, particularly in contexts involving unequal bargaining power.
