Rounds v. Rounds

283 S.W. 77, 214 Ky. 294, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 315
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedMay 4, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 283 S.W. 77 (Rounds v. Rounds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rounds v. Rounds, 283 S.W. 77, 214 Ky. 294, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 315 (Ky. 1926).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Clay

Affirming,

Elizabeth M. Rounds died January 12, 1924, aged 89 years. Her only heirs at law were her five 'Children, Fred, Harry, J ames, Erdix and Frank, and two grandchildren, Sherley J. Rounds, the son of a deceased son, and Roy Silverthorn, the son of a deceased daughter. By her will, which was executed on June 30, 1920, she confirmed two deeds whereby she conveyed to her sons, Fred Y. Rounds and Harry B. Rounds, two tracts of land on the Leitchfield road southeast of Owensboro, one containing 36 acres and the other 6 1/3 acres, and a third tract containing 3 34/100 acres located on Griffith avenue in Owensboro. She also -confirmed a certain contract by which in consideration of $2,500.00 to be paid she sold and transferred to Fred and Harry all of her interest in the firm of B. H. Rounds & Sons, -and all of -her personal property of every kind and description. She also devised and bequeathed all of her property of every kind and description to Fred and Harry, with the proviso that if any part of the $2,500.00 for which the business was sold was not paid before her death then the balance should go toller other three sons and grandsons, James, Erdix, Frank, Sherley and Roy Silverthorn. She added that with this exception she -desired her two sons Fred and Harry to have all of her property, including that transferred to *295 them by the deeds and contracts, assigning as a reason that for more than thirteen years they had looked after, provided for and taken care of her in a very kind and attentive way, and that the care, attention and provision which they had made for her were worth more than all the property devised to them. In case an executor was necessary she nominated Fred and Harry, and asked the court to appoint them or either of them without requiring any bond.

Sherley J. Rounds, the grandson of the testatrix, contested the will on the ground of mental incapacity and undue influence. The jury found against the will and the propounders have appealed.

The will was witnessed and proven by Dr. C. J. Lock-hart and E. E. Owsley. Dr. Lockhart deposed that he thought that the mind of the testatrix was in a normal condition at the time. Some few weeks before he had treated her for pneumonia. On the occasion when he attested the will Fred Rounds asked him to come down. It was about eight o’clock in the evening. Mr. Owsley went along. Mrs. Rounds said, “I want you to witness my will. ’ ’ The will was not read at the time. Whether she knew anything about business matters he did not know. He had no occasion to test out the question. Mrs. Rounds lived in a small room back of the store and it was not well lighted or ventilated. E. E. Owsley testified that Mrs. Rounds’ mind was all right so far as he knew, •or he would not have witnessed the will. Her talk was .normal and rational. By appointment with Fred he met Dr. Lockhart there to witness the will. Mrs. Rounds said that she wanted him to witness the will and that was all that was said about it. He had never talked to her about her business affairs.

The contestant, Sherley J. Rounds, testified that he saw his grandmother every day for about a month in 1922. At that time his uncle Fred occupied the bed with her and would hardly ever leave her alone. In his opinion she had no mind at all. While he was reading to her she paid no attention whatever. She would sit there and pick at her clothes, or tear a paper into small scraps. If she had a napkin or handkerchief she would sit and fold it in small squares and make designs out of it just as a little child would do. She did not know him at all, and when her sons came in she would ask who that was. The room which his grandmother occupied was about 24 by 20. It w;as necessary to use an electric light to read by. *296 Fred was the dominating influence in his grandmother’& life, and the only influence she would consider. She did what he told her to do. Sometimes it took coaxing and sometimes it took a little more than coaxing. On cross-examination it developed that prior to the year 1922 he had not seen his grandmother for 16 years. He expressed the opinion that from her condition in 1922 he did not believe that she could have gotten into such condition in less than five years. Erdix N. Rounds, who sometimes worked in the store on a commission basis, testified that even as far back as 1914 or 1915 his mother asked who the children were and asked who his wife was. In 1919 when he came back his mother got them all mixed up and lots of times would take him for Fred and on other occasions would think Fred was her husband. At that time she did not realize that her husband was dead. Lots of times she would say, “Daddy has not come to supper. ” His brother Fred had an influence over his mother and whatever he demanded or wanted went. Fred was in the horse business and that worried his mother. She said, “He is breaking us up. ” She also said that his mind was unbalanced and on that account there was no love equal to a mother’s love and she hung to him. Long after the will was executed she said that she had made no will and wanted all of them to share equally. Fred always nursed, his mother and was very attentive to her. James Rounds testified that his mother never had any ill feeling towards any of the boys. He frequently talked with his mother. Her hobby was to have the children home. She would frequently say, “I wish yon would go bring the children home, it is gettirg late.” He would tell her that he had been after the children and that they were all right. She would then become reconciled' and go to bed. After he had helped her to bed she would ask him if he had gone after the children. He told her that the children were at a neighbor’s and were all right. She would then ask when they were going to have supper. She would sit down and eat a meal and immediately after leaving the table would say, “When are you going to give me my supper, I am getting hungry. ’ ’ He could not say that she had a good mind. She could tell you all about her girlhood days, but knew nothing about things that had happened since then. Half the time she did not know her own children. Sometimes she would call Fred “Daddy” and say, “Is Daddy down at his store yet?” In 1920 his mother did not have mind enough to know her property *297 or her children. She was never unkind to any of the children. She always listened to Fred and did what he wanted her to do. Frank Rounds saw his mother two or three times a week. From 1916 down his mother did not know him unless he told her who he was. Her mind grew worse. He often'heard her say to Jim, “When are you going to bring the children home?” He wanted to know who the children were and then she wanted to know who he was. She never knew at any time what she was doing. She often called Fred “Daddy” and he believed she thought Fred was witness’ father. Byrne McDaniel testified that he knew Mrs. Rounds as far back as 1902 and saw her two or three times a year during the last ten years of her life. When he first got acquainted with her she knew him and talked to him. During the last six or seven years she did not act like she recognized him at all. Margaret Rounds Iaun, a daughter of Frank Rounds, testified that in 1918 she saw her grandmother nearly every day. In 1920 and 1921 she saw her three or four times a week. She spent a lot of time in the room with her grandmother. She never knew her father or her Uncle Jim or her Uncle Dick.

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

Related

Raymond v. Schloemer
409 S.W.2d 809 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1966)
Hanna v. Eiche
79 S.W.2d 950 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Hagedorn v. Scott
15 S.W.2d 479 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1929)
White v. Cherry
2 S.W.2d 1060 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
Rounds v. Rounds
294 S.W. 785 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 S.W. 77, 214 Ky. 294, 1926 Ky. LEXIS 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rounds-v-rounds-kyctapphigh-1926.