Vincent v. Creel, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01198-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Inter vivos gift - Undue influence - Joint tenancy with right of survivorship - Constructive trust Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-01-2010 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: DEED FROM APPELLEE TO APPELLANT SET ASIDE FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE Case Number: 06-0183-PR-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Thomas Sheldon Vincent |
JAMES R. HAYDEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | Clinton Creel and Beverly Stockstill Co-Conservators for Their Adult Daughter Shannon Celeste Creel | GLENN LOUIS WHITE | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Inter vivos gift - Undue influence - Joint tenancy with right of survivorship - Constructive trust |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1997, Shannon Creel resigned from her job due to the debilitating effects of diabetes. When Creel became unable to drive or adequately care for herself, she moved into her mother’s residence and granted her mother, Beverly Stockstill, power of attorney over Creel’s day-to-day affairs. Creel owned property in Pearl River County, referred to as the Henley property. As a result of her illness, Creel attempted to sell the property. The new owners eventually proved unable to make payments, and Creel regained title and possession of the property. During this time, the property fell into a state of disarray, and Creel hired a contractor to make repairs. In 2004, Creel quitclaimed the Henley property to Stockstill, in an effort to protect the property from creditors. Thomas Vincent, Creel’s friend since 1996, offered to repair the property in return for rent-free use and occupancy of the property. Stockstill agreed to deed the land to both Creel and Vincent on October 18, 2004, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Creel later executed a quitclaim deed to her share of the joint interest in the Henley property to Vincent, the other joint tenant, on November 8, 2004. Vincent lived in a home on the Henley property from 2004 until 2006, when Creel approached Vincent and asked him to trade the property back to Stockstill in return for a one-half interest in a home owned by Stockstill. Vincent refused. On September 18, 2006, the Pearl River County Sheriff’s Department arrested Vincent on the charge of fraud against a disabled person. Creel and Stockstill then filed a complaint to void Creel’s November 2004 deed to Vincent, alleging that Vincent had fraudulently coerced Creel to convey her property to Vincent with no consideration. Vincent responded with an answer and a counterclaim, seeking damages as a result of Creel’s and Stockstill’s actions. On August 28, 2008, Creel filed an amended complaint seeking to void the quitclaim deed. Creel passed away prior to trial. After the trial, the chancellor found that a confidential relationship existed between Creel and Vincent. The chancellor further found that Vincent failed to rebut the showing of undue influence. The chancellor voided Vincent’s title to the property and determined that the property should be held in a constructive trust by Creel’s estate. Vincent appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Vincent argues that no evidence appears in the record to support the chancellor’s finding that he defrauded Creel or that he had any undue influence over Creel. Vincent also claims that no evidence existed to support the finding that Creel lacked any mental or physical capacity at the time she deeded her interest in the Henley property to Vincent. If the chancellor finds that a confidential relationship exists between the grantee and grantor, the inter vivos gift – here, the deed to the Henley property – is presumptively invalid. Once the presumption of undue influence has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the grantee to show by clear and convincing evidence that the gift was not the product of undue influence. Here, there was no abuse of discretion or error by the chancellor in setting aside the November 2004 quitclaim deed from Creel to Vincent. The record supports the chancellor’s findings that Vincent failed to show good faith in his actions and indeed intended to defraud Creel. The record is replete with observations and statements regarding Creel’s extreme health problems and deteriorating condition. Additionally, Creel’s deposition reflects that she never intended to give Vincent a half interest in the Henley property. Creel also stated that Vincent refused to perform any repair work on the home until Creel put the deed in Vincent’s name. Additionally, the record shows that Creel never received any advice from independent counsel. Thus, there is no error in the chancellor’s findings with respect to voiding the November 2004 quitclaim deed. However, the chancellor erred in setting aside Vincent’s title to the property after voiding the November 2004 quitclaim deed in which Creel deeded her share of the joint tenancy to Vincent. Although the chancellor voided the November 2004 quitclaim deed, he failed to set aside the pre-existing joint tenancy established by the October 2004 deed. As a result, the prior conveyance in October 2004 from Stockstill to both Creel and Vincent as joint tenants with right of survivorship remained a valid conveyance. This valid conveyance of a joint tenancy results in Vincent’s sole ownership of the property at issue due to Creel’s death. The chancellor provided no findings that reflected that Vincent defrauded or unduly influenced Stockstill to obtain the October 2004 deed conveying the property to Vincent and Creel as joint tenants. Property held by the decedent in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is not a part of the decedent's estate; rather, it passes to the survivor upon the decedent's death. Stockstill failed to establish proof of a constructive trust upon setting aside of the November 2004 quitclaim deed, since Creel and Vincent already owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Stockstill also failed to show any evidence of fraud, duress, or unconscionable conduct toward her by Vincent affecting the validity of her prior conveyance in October 2004 of the property to Vincent and Creel. Therefore, the chancellor’s decision to place the property at issue in a constructive trust to be held by Creel’s estate is reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
