Ross v. Conway
1892 Cal. LEXIS 771, 28 P. 785, 92 Cal. 632 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a person in a confidential relationship, such as a spiritual adviser, gains an advantage in a transaction with the person who confides in them, the law presumes the transaction was the result of undue influence. This presumption can only be rebutted by showing the weaker party had independent advice and acted with full understanding and free will.
Facts:
- Elizabeth G. Ross was a longtime member of the Roman Catholic church in Santa Rosa, and defendant Conway was the church's pastor and her spiritual adviser.
- In December 1887, Ross executed a will that left the majority of her estate to her son, the plaintiff.
- In August 1888, while Ross was weak in body, mentally impaired, and in a dying condition, she executed two deeds of trust.
- The deeds directed that a large portion of her estate, including real estate proceeds and income, be paid to defendant Conway and the church he pastored.
- Conway introduced Ross to the attorney who drafted the deeds of trust.
- Conway was present during the discussions between Ross and the attorney regarding the disposition of her property.
- Ross did not have any independent advice from a disinterested party regarding the transaction.
- Ross died on August 20, 1888, just days after executing the second deed.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, the son of Elizabeth G. Ross, initiated an action in the trial court to annul two deeds of trust executed by his mother.
- The case was tried by the court, with a jury acting in an advisory capacity.
- The advisory jury's verdict and the trial court's findings were in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly.
- The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The defendants appealed from both the judgment and the order denying a new trial to this 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:
Are deeds of trust that substantially benefit the grantor's spiritual adviser void due to a presumption of undue influence when the grantor was of weak mind, in a dying condition, and executed the instruments without the benefit of independent advice?
Opinions:
Majority - Harrison, J.
Yes. The deeds of trust are void because a transaction that benefits a person in a confidential relationship is presumptively the product of undue influence. The relationship between a spiritual adviser and a person who is near death and physically weak is one of the most powerful relationships of influence. When such an adviser receives an advantage, a court of equity will presume the influence was exercised unduly. This presumption requires the transaction to be set aside unless the benefiting party can prove that the other party had independent advice and fully comprehended the act and its consequences. Here, Conway failed to rebut this presumption; he introduced the attorney and was present during the consultations, meaning Ross lacked the necessary independent counsel to validate the transaction that diverted her estate from its natural heir to her adviser.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of presumptive undue influence within confidential relationships, particularly extending its application with 'peculiar force' to the spiritual adviser-advisee relationship. The ruling shifts the burden of proof to the dominant party in such a relationship to demonstrate the transaction's fairness and the weaker party's informed, voluntary consent. This creates a high evidentiary bar for upholding transactions that divert assets from natural heirs to fiduciaries or advisers, thereby establishing a strong, protective precedent for vulnerable individuals, especially the elderly and infirm.
