45 Wn.2d 888, EDGAR O. GREEN, as Guardian of the Estate of John Elmer Clark, an Incompetent, Respondent, v. FRANK COOK et al., Appellants
[No. 32990. Department One. Supreme Court January 3, 1955.]
EDGAR O. GREEN, as Guardian of the Estate of John Elmer
Clark, an Incompetent, Respondent, v. FRANK COOK
et al., Appellants.1
[1] EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY - EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY - RESCISSION - INCOMPETENCE - DISPARITY IN VALUE. In an action by the guardian of an incompetent person to rescind an exchange of real estate made with the defendants sixty days prior to the adjudication of incompetency, held that the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court that the person was incOmpetent at the time of the transaction, and that there was a disparity of $5,466 in the value of the two houses.
[2] SAME. In such an action, it is immaterial whether statements made by the defendant husband that he knew the governor and that, if the exchange of property was made, he would help the person secure an old age pension and help him repair his house, were true or not, since they were made for the purpose of inducing an incompetent person to make an improvident exchange of properties having a great disparity in value.
[3] INSANE PERSONS - ACTIONS - JURISDICTION AND POWER OF COURTS. Equity will protect incompetent persons against improvident transactions.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, No. 55155, Stiger, J., entered June 9, 1954, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for rescission, tried to the court. Affirmed.
Russell H. Fluent, for appellants.
Max Kosher and James Tynan, for respondent.
MALLERY, J. -
On May 18, 1953, John Elmer Clark, a man eighty-eight years of age, was adjudicated to be
1 Reported in 278 P. (2d) 402.
[1] See 95 A. L. R. 1442; 28 Am. Jur. 716.
Jan. 1955] GREEN v. COOK. 889
incompetent, in an ex parte proceeding. The plaintiff herein was appointed as his guardian and authorized to bring this action for rescission of an exchange of real estate made with defendants about sixty days previously on March 19, 1953.
The trial court found that, at the time of the exchange, Clark "was suffering from mental and physical deterioration, which made him incompetent and unable to know or comprehend the nature or the consequences of his act and deed."
The trial court found that the home Clark traded to Cook had a value of $12,500, and was subject to a first mortgage in the sum of $4,734 and a second mortgage in the sum of $300, giving it a net worth of $7,466; and that the house Cook traded to him was worth $3,500, subject to a mortgage in the approximate amount of $1,500, giving it a net worth of $2,000.
The trial court decreed a rescission of the exchange and allowed defendants eight hundred fifty dollars for betterments made to the Clark home while in their possession. From this decree the defendants appeal.
[1] We are satisfied from the record that John Elmer Clark was incompetent at the time of the transaction in question, and we are satisfied that the record sustains the disparity in value of the two houses, as found by the trial court.
We can agree with appellants that old age is not a ground for rescission of a contract. However, the trial court based its decree upon Clark's incompetence, not his old age.
The gravamen of appellant's appeal, aside form challenging the trial court's findings of incompetence and the values of the houses, is that respondent failed to prove fraud. This contention involves Clark's desire for an old age pension. He was willing to do almost anything to secure one. The defendant Cook told him that he knew the governor, and that, if the exchange of properties was made, he would help Clark secure an old age pension and help him repair his house. It is appellant's position that these statements were not false and, hence, could not constitute clear and cogent proof of fraud.
890 GREEN v. COOK. [45 Wn. (2d)
[2, 3] We think it is immaterial whether the statements were true or not, since they were made for the purpose of inducing an incompetent person to make an improvident exchange of properties having a great disparity in value. Equity will protect incompetent persons against such improvident transactions. Hattie v. Potter, 54 Wash. 170, 102 Pac. 1023; 3 American Law of Property 180, 11.70.
The judgment is affirmed.
GRADY, C. J., HAMLEY, FINLEY, and OLSON, JJ., concur.