In Re Estate of McKenney
2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 330, 2008 WL 2827527, 953 A.2d 336 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract may be rescinded for a material misrepresentation that induced the other party to enter the agreement. Proving all the elements of common law fraud by clear and convincing evidence is not required for the equitable remedy of rescission.
Facts:
- In 1990, Joseph W. McKenney, Jr. became the sole heir to his mother's estate, the main asset of which was her home.
- For over a decade, property taxes on the home went unpaid, accruing to over $100,000.
- In November 2004, Khalid B.M. Eltayeb approached McKenney, a banquet steward with no real estate experience who was living in a shelter.
- Eltayeb misrepresented that the property faced imminent demolition, introducing an associate as the person contracted for the demolition, and pressed McKenney for an immediate decision.
- Eltayeb did not disclose the property’s actual value, which was approximately $150,000, or that McKenney had a right of redemption.
- Relying on Eltayeb's misrepresentations and under pressure, McKenney agreed to sell his interest in the property for $1,200.
- Eltayeb had McKenney sign an assignment of rights and a petition for probate, concealing the page of the petition that listed the home's $150,000 value.
- In March 2005, a third party informed McKenney of the property's true value and offered to purchase it for $205,000 minus the outstanding tax debt.
Procedural Posture:
- Khalid B.M. Eltayeb filed a Petition for Probate in the probate court for the estate of Geraldine B. McKenney.
- After a hearing, the probate court (trial court) granted the petition and appointed Eltayeb as the personal representative of the estate.
- Eltayeb subsequently conveyed the estate's primary property to himself via a quitclaim deed.
- Joseph McKenney, Jr. filed a petition in the same probate court to remove Eltayeb as personal representative and to rescind the assignment of his rights.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings and found that Eltayeb had made fraudulent misrepresentations, ordering his removal as personal representative and voiding both the assignment and the quitclaim deed.
- Eltayeb (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, with McKenney 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 a contract for the assignment of property rights voidable for misrepresentation if the misrepresentation was material and induced the agreement, even if the elements of fraud are not proven by clear and convincing evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Steadman, Senior Judge
Yes, a contract is voidable if it was induced by a material misrepresentation. The court distinguished the tort action of fraud, which requires proof by clear and convincing evidence for monetary damages, from the equitable action of rescission. To rescind a contract, a party need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a material misrepresentation that would likely have induced a reasonable person to make the contract. Here, Eltayeb made multiple material misrepresentations, including the imminent demolition of the property, its lack of value, and the status of his associate. McKenney's reliance was justified, particularly because Eltayeb created a sense of urgency that prevented reasonable inquiry. The court found Eltayeb's testimony to be completely fabricated, which further supported the conclusion that his actions were deceptive and justified voiding the assignment.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the distinction between the legal remedy for fraud (damages) and the equitable remedy for material misrepresentation (rescission). By upholding rescission on a lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) and without requiring proof of fraudulent intent, the court makes it easier for vulnerable parties to escape contracts induced by falsehoods. The case highlights that even if a party's reliance might seem naive, it can be deemed reasonable if the other party actively creates pressure or prevents a thorough investigation. This ruling strengthens protections for unsophisticated individuals in transactions involving complex assets like real estate.
