Cavanagh v. O'Connor

186 Iowa 257
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedDecember 14, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 Iowa 257 (Cavanagh v. O'Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cavanagh v. O'Connor, 186 Iowa 257 (iowa 1918).

Opinion

Stevens, J.

In April, 1915, E. T. Runion, who was then about 93 years of age, executed two warranty deeds, conveying his real estate, consisting of a residence property in New Hampton, Iowa, and a 480-acre tract in Texas, to the defendants O’Connor and Kennedy; and about the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, a trust agree[258]*258liiont and a bond in the sum of $5,000, binding defendants O’Connor and Kennedy to the faithful performance of the terms thereof, was entered into between the above-named parties, designating defendants as trustees to manage and dispose of the real property conveyed, together with certain personal property, including about $500 on deposit in the First National Bank of New Hampton. This suit, which is prosecuted in the name of Bunion’s guardian, was brought to obtain a cancellation of the above-named instruments. The grounds upon which this is sought are that same was obtained by fraud and undue influence, practiced upon Bunion by the defendants and others at a time when he was of unsound mind, and while confidential and fiduciary relations existed between O’Connor, who is a practicing attorney, and Bunion.

The deeds are in the usual form of warranty deeds, and acknowledge a consideration of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration. The trust agreement is somewhat lengthy, but the following is the part thereof material to this controversy:

“It is further agreed that second parties shall hold the legal title to the land above described, free from any trust limitations, Avith authority to sell and convert the same into cash as soon as they shall deem it expedient to do so, the intention being to authorize and direct such sale and conversion at the earliest moment consistent with good business judgment; and second parties are hereby authorized and empowered to convey said property to any purchaser or purchasers thereof, free from the terms and limitations of this trust, and without any appraisement, order of court, or other restrictions of any kind.

“It is further agreed that second parties, as trustees, shall, out of the funds or proceeds arising from the sale of said property, pay over to first party the sum of $1,000 for such special purposes and use as first party may desire to [259]*259make of same, and shall pay all indebtedness owing by first party at this time, inehiding any mortgages against any of said property; that said second parties, as trustees, shall hold the remainder of said funds in their hands for such time and purposes as are herein.provided; and so long as said property or the funds derived from the sale thereof remain in the hands of the second parties under this agreement, second parties agree to hold same in trust, and from said property or funds or from the income therefrom, to provide first party with all necessary board, lodging, clothing, washing, and laundry, nursing, medical attendance, and a nominal amount for pocket money from time to time, so long as he shall live, and to furnish him a proper and respectable burial.in case of his death; all the remainder of said property or the funds derived from the sale thereof shall be devoted to hospital purposes as hereinafter provided.

“Second parties are hereby authorized to apply proceeds from the sale of said property in wholé or in part, or the property itself (so far as same may remain unsold), to aid the said Servant Sisters of the Holy Ghost-in the erection of a hospital in New Hampton, Iowa, and in the purchase of a proper site therefor; provided, however (if first party be living at said time), that, before any of said property or funds shall be used for hospital purposes as above provided, said Servant Sisters of the Holy Ghost shall first legally obligate themselves by written contract to continue to furnish first party all necessary board, lodging, clothing, washing, and laundry, nursing, medical attendance, and a nominal amount for pocket money from time to time, so long as he shall live, and to furnish him respectable and proper burial in case of his death; and said contract shall provide that first party shall be assigned a suitable and comfortable room in said hospital.”

Defendant Servant Sisters of the Holy Ghost is an Illinois corporation, having its principal place of business at [260]*260Teckny in that state, where it owns and conducts an Old Folks’ Home and hospital. The Servant Sisters are also engaged in the business of erecting and conducting hospitals. Some months prior to the execution of the several instruments in question, a committee, - of which defendants O’Con-nor and Kennedy were members, undertook to raise a certain amount of money in New Hampton to aid the defendant corporation to procure a site and erect and conduct a hospital in that city. The deeds and trust agreement were executed after some negotiations between Bunion and the defendants. No actual fraud or misrepresentation is claimed or established by the evidence. The testimony offered to prove the alleged confidential or fiduciary relation between O’Connor and Bunion covered substantially the following transactions:

About the year 1S97, O’Connor, at the request of Tim Donovan, a banker residing in New Hampton, of whose bank Bunion was a customer, after one consultation with Bunion, prepared a will for him, which was later signed in O’Connor’s-presence. Again, in 1910, Bunion desiring to have a new will, Donovan for him employed O’Connor to write it, and in 1912, Donovan employed the firm of Smith & O’Connor' to make defense for Bunion, in an action brought against him in the district court of Chickasaw County. After some delay, and when the case was about to come to trial, it was settled by Bunion by páying plaintiff $500. The settlement was made upon the advice of his attorneys. But two conferences were had between O’Connor and Bunion during the pendency of this litigation. All of the above matters were fully closed before the transactions in question arose, and no business relation existed between O’Connor and Bunion at that time, except that the latter was still indebted to Smith & O’Connor for $100 attorney fees.

[261]*261*■ AND relation^ [260]*260The relation of attorney and client is necessarily one of [261]*261great trust and confidence, and imposes upon the former the duty to deal with the latter in all respects in the utmost good faith. Morrison v. Smith, 130 Ill. 304 (23 N. E. 241); State v. Johnson, 149 Iowa 462; Shropshire v. Ryan, 111 Iowa 677; Donaldson v. Eaton, 136 Iowa 650; Ryan Bros. v. Ashton, 42 Iowa 365.

In the case at bar, no such relation is shown to have existed, at the time the instruments were executed. Just when the relation terminated is not shown, but O’Connor was in no wise employed by or acting for Iiunion at the time of the transaction complained of. That clients often repose a high degree of confidence in attorneys formerly employed by them is, of course, true, but the transactions between them cannot be set aside upon that ground. The papers in question were prepared by Mr. O’Connor, but specific provision is made in the trust agreement that he is to receive no personal profit or benefit therefrom.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Else v. Fremont Methodist Church
73 N.W.2d 50 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1955)
Cavanagh v. O'Connor
194 Iowa 670 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 Iowa 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavanagh-v-oconnor-iowa-1918.