McAdams v. McAdams

Citations

• 80 Ohio St. (N.S.) 232

Syllabus

<p>Action for reformation of deed — Brought by grantor — On ground of fraud — Grantee the son of grantor, etc. — Presumption of trust — Burden on grantee to show no undue advantage — Presumption is rebutted by evidence that grantor could read, etc.— Declarations of grantor — Incompetent to prove fraud, when— Admissible to rebut claim of fraud.</p> <p>1. In an action by the grantor in a deed, to reform the instrument upon the ground that the grantee fraudulently concealed and misstated the contents of the deed to the grantor, when it appears that the grantee is a son of the grantor and an attorney at law, and that such grantee was entrusted with the drafting of the instrument upon his own suggestion, such facts raise a presumption of the existence of relations of trust and confidence between the parties and put upon the grantee the burden of showing that no undue advantage was taken of the grantor in the execution of the deed.</p> <p>2. But when it also clearly appears in such case that such deed is in apparent accord with previous declarations of the grantor as to his intentions and his subsequent declarations as to what he had done, and that he could read and had ample opportunity before, at, and after, signing the deed to read the same, the presumption of undue advantage by reason of confidential relations is rebutted, and the burden rests upon the grantor to show by clear and convincing proof that the deed is fraudulent.</p> <p>3. In such case declarations of the grantor, made in the absence of the grantee, are not competent evidence to 'prove the alleged fraud; hut statements of the grantor which tend to rebut the claim of fraud, whether made before or after the signing of the deed, are admissible.</p>