Bull v. Hepworth

Compromise and Settlement — Estates oe Decedents — Consideration — Fraud. In the absence of fraud or overreaching, the compromise of a claim against the estate of a decedent, made to avoid the expense of litigation by one in possession of the entire property under a conveyance made by the deceased to take effect at his death, is supported by adequate consideration, and is not subject to rescission in equity.

Appeal from Cass; Des Voignes, J. Bill by Eunice Bull against Josephine Hep worth for the cancellation of a note and mortgage for fraudulent representations. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Cornelius Terwilliger owned a farm of 80 acres in Cass county, upon which, he resided for a number of years, and up to the time of his death, which occurred November 18, 1907. He had no children, and died intestate. His wife had died several years earlier. Complainant, his niece, and a widow, worked for him for six months in the year 1904, and after his wife’s death returned to' him in October, 1905, remaining until his death in the capacity of housekeeper. On October 31, 1907, about two weeks before his death, Terwilliger deeded his farm to complainant. This deed was not delivered, but was held by the justice of the peace who took the acknowledgment, and delivered to complainant after the funeral. The deed contained the proviso: “This deed, to take effect at my death.” Defendant had made eight trips from her home in Kansas to nurse and care for Terwilliger and his wife. These visits together covered a period of about two years. They were made at the request of Terwilliger, and under a promise of remuneration, as shown by numerous letters from him to defendant. After the funeral defendant made a claim to complainant that Terwilliger was indebted to her for her services in nursing him and his wife, and for expenses of travel between Kansas and Michigan, incurred by her at Terwilliger’s request. The parties had several conferences about the matter, and it was finally agreed between them that complainant should give defendant a note for $1,000, secured by a mortgage on the south half of the farm, in full satisfaction for defendant’s claim against Terwilliger’s estate. On December 3,1907, this note and mortgage were executed by complainant. It was recorded on December 5, 1907, and two days later, complainant filed her bill herein, seeking to set aside said note and mortgage for fraud and lack of consideration. At this time no administration had been asked for upon Terwilliger’s estate, and complainant was in undisputed possession thereof, personal as well as real. The only known claim against the estate was that of defendant.