Gordon v. Rawles

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree annulling a deed from Isaac T. Rawles, appellee here, and his wife, Sarah Rawles, holding as tenants by the entireties, to James Gordon, appellant here. The testimony for the purposes of this case shows the following. On April 2, 1945, the appellee and his wife purchased a house at 1562 Clifton Avenue, Baltimore, for the price of $3,000.00, subject to an annual ground rent of $48.00, paying $260.00 in cash and giving a mortgage for the balance of $2,470.00.

The husband worked at “Holabird” and the mortgage was paid off early in 1951. About July 4th of that year Sarah Rawles became ill and worked only one day in September before her death on November 20, 1951. Prior to July she had been working as a domestic. Before 1951, Isaac became disabled and has not worked since, and has been drawing from social security about $28.75 per month.

About August 14, 1951, the Rawles installed a hot water heater in their property and borrowed $225.00 to pay for this. They were required to pay $18.00 per month on this debt. Isaac Rawles, 72 years of age, who could read and write, testified as follows: He and his wife met the appellee, James Gordon, in 1925, and became friendly with him. On September 27, 1951, while his wife was sick in bed, he and his wife signed a fee simple deed of their home to James Gordon.

He had not consulted a lawyer previously. When asked on direct examination why he signed the deed to James Gordon, he said: “I was in the cellar at the time, and so they called me up the stairs and I came up, and Jimmie [Gordon] said— * * * Yes, he said he was going to take it over and help me out. I did not know — she had not consulted with ⁵⁰⁶ me, had not told me nothing in the world about it. I did not know nothing about it and did not know h§ was there until they called me up out of the cellar, and when I goes up out of the cellar they sprung this to me, and said Jimmie would take it over — he would help me out.

It was news to me. No one had not told me, and I said: ‘Well, all right.’ And then he asked me to sign, and I signed the piece of paper, you know. I had not heard nothing about it, and I know he had been a friend, you know, and I thought the heater that was in there, that is in there now, and after he said that I said: ‘Well, if you want to help me out’ — I thought, you know, he was standing for it, or something like that, and that is why I put my signature on itl She did not consult with me and did not tell me anything.’ He further said no one else explained the deed to him. He thought at that time they owed fifty or one hundred dollars on the water heater.

He said: “I don’t know because they did not tell me anything.” He did not know whether the taxes had been paid. He further said he wanted his property back and was willing to pay Mr. Gordon any money which he had paid on the property. He testified that he did not know what he was signing. He recognized Mr. William I Gosnell who prepared the deed and agreement, as being in his house the day the deed was signed.

He said he did not recall that Mr. Gosnell told him he was deeding the property, getting rid of it completely by giving it to Jimmie. He said he remembered Mr. Gosnell saying to him and his wife that he did not think it was a good idea and that it would be better for him and his wife to keep the house for life, and then the remainder after his death to go to Jimmie, and that in the meantime Jimmie should pay the taxes and ground rent and things of that kind. He also remembered his wife insisting and saying in the presence of Mr. Gosnell: “No, I don’t want it that way, I want Jimmie to have it now.” He further said his wife carried on all the business of the house. He said he had implicit confidence in her and whatever she ⁵⁰⁷ did or advised him to do, he generally would do.

Dr. J. Douglass Sheppard, whose qualifications were admitted and who examined Isaac Rawles in September, 1950, testified that in his opinion “he was a little slow in comprehending” and that his condition would probably progress. Louise Copeland, a daughter of Isaac Rawles by a previous marriage, testified that in August, 1951, Sarah Rawles asked her to loan her money to pay her taxes. She said she did not have the money then but would have it in two weeks. At the end of that time she went to tell Sarah she was ready to pay the taxes and found that the water heater had been put in.

She found out later that Mr. and Mrs. Rawles had deeded the property to the appellee, having been told by her sister. Sarah did not say anything to her about it. She said after Sarah’s death she asked Gordon about the taxes and he said: “I have time to pay them.” The granddaughter, Mildred Blackwell, was living with Isaac in the house and continued to pay $8.00 a week so Isaac would be fed. She was looking after him.

Louise Copeland said the reason she called Dr. Sheppard in September, 1950, was because: “Mother was making a complaint about him — well, he was saying things and he was nervous and one night he went downstairs and went into the basement, and got an iron pipe, he thought he heard some one in the living room, and when he came back he drew the pipe back to strike and there was no one in there, and he said he was so nervous. He sat down and was shaking like a leaf, and for two weeks mother said she did not pull her clothes off, she was so afraid of him. She would tell us often how he carried on.” She said that Sarah ran everything in the house and Mr. Rawles did about what she said. James Gordon, the appellee, testified, that he had not paid the 1951 and 1952 taxes on the house because Louise Copeland would not give him the tax bills.

During the argument of the case in this Court we were advised that he has now paid the taxes. He said he had paid ⁵⁰⁸ $17.60 on the water heater and that is all he had paid. He earned about $76.00 a week driving a crane, had no dependents, and lived in one room. When asked why the house was deeded to him, he replied as follows: In 1951 Mrs. Rawles said: “‘Jimmie, I am going to give you this home.’ She said: ‘You have been nice to me.

You have lent me money. Some I paid back and some I did not.’ And she said: T feel like you have did enough for me to give you this home to keep it from getting away. I offered it to my children and they said they did not want it, and I am going to give it to you.’ I did not believe her. I did not pay it no mind.

So she sent for me and kept sending for me, and I made up my mind to go to see what she wanted. So I went up there, and she said: ‘Jimmie, I want to give you the home.’ I said: ‘You want to give me your home?’ She said: ‘Yes, you were nice to me.’ And I said: ‘Well, if that is the way you want it I guess I will make up my mind.’ I still did not make up my mind, and she kept sending for me, and I went back again and the last time I went back I called Mr. Rawles and Mrs. Rawles together, and we were talking. I said: ‘Mr. Rawles, do you know what your wife wants to do?’ He said: ‘What is it, Jimmie?’ I said: ‘She wants to give me this home. It is both of your home together.

What do you say about it?’ He said: ‘If Sarah wants you to have it I want you to have it.’ I still did not decide whether to take the home or not. So she keeps sending back, and so I went back again, and she said: T am going to give you the home.’ I said: ‘Get your lawyer that bought the home for you to fix it up.’ She calls a lawyer. The lawyer was out of town, and she told me to get a lawyer, and I did not know anything about no lawyer. A friend of mine working on the job, I asked him where I can get a good lawyer, and he said: ‘Yes, Jimmie, Mr. Gosnell.’ I said: ‘Where does he live at?’ He said: ‘Right around the corner from you.’ So I went up and saw her that night and talked with her again, and I came down to Mr. Gosnell’s house.

So ⁵⁰⁹ he could not understand it himself. I said: ‘Call her/ and he called her, and he said: ‘You are right.’ So he went up to see about it, so that was all of that.” He said Mrs. Rawles had called him about six or seven times. The papers were signed in the presence of himself, Mr. and Mrs. Rawles, and Mr. and Mrs. Gosnell, and that Mr. Gosnell told Mr. and Mrs. Rawles: “ ‘Do you all know what you are all doing?’ He said: ‘Do you know you are signing off your rights?’ And he told them, he said: ‘Take my advice, why not give him the place after you all are dead?’ That is the way. I could not explain just like he did, and they said: ‘No, we don’t want it like that.’ Both of them said: ‘We will give it direct.’ ” He said he thought they understood what they were doing.

He testified that he had known the Rawles for many years. They had great affection for him and great confidence in him. Mrs. Rawles frequently borrowed money from him and she owed him perhaps $100.00 at that time. He was not sure of this.

There were no liens against the property. It was subject to the annual ground rent of $48.00. At the time the deed was executed an agreement was also signed by which James Gordon agreed as long as the Rawles lived they were permitted to occupy the house in full. Gordon further agreed that he would pay “any and all obligations against the property * * * such as Ground Rent, Taxes and water rent bills now accumulated for repairs and improvements to the property, and said party of the second part [Gordon] agrees further that he will at no time during the life of the parties of the first part [the Rawles] encumber the property now conveyed beyond the extent of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars without the written consent of the said parties of the first part.” Mrs. Rawles died about two months after the deed and agrément were signed.

He said the house was not taken in payment of any money owed him. Betty Rawles, another daughter of Isaac Rawles by a former marriage, testified that Mrs. Rawles asked her three times to tell James Gordon to come to the ⁵¹⁰ house because she wanted to see him. Mrs. Rawles had offered to turn the house over to her but she would not take it because she had a place of her own. She told Betty “I will turn it over to Jimmie, and I am sure he will take care of it.” Betty replied “I will see that he does.” Betty never talked to her father about the matter.

Mrs. Rawles was younger than her husband and took care of everything herself. Betty said it was through her that Mr. and Mrs. Rawles met James Gordon. Mr. William I. Gosnell, the attorney who drew the deed and agreement, testified that James Gordon was sent to him by one of his clients and Gordon told him that Mrs. Rawles wanted to give him the property. He further testified: “I would say it is worth between $4,000.00 and $4,500.00.

Frankly, I just could not understand it, and I went up to see these people, and I told her that was not the way it is usually done, she should have a life estate, you know, and after their death to him, and they insisted they did not want that, so I said: ‘That is the way it should be done anyhow/ and I then drew a deed. None of them knew about that separate agreement. I prepared that out of my own thought because I did not know the man, and I felt he might at some time try to do these people out.” He repeated that the Rawles “wanted a straight deed”. The agreement was not acknowledged or recorded.

He further said as to Gordon: “He has a nice car and he makes a good salary. They would not. let me draw the kind of deed I wanted, so I just prepared that deed. Mrs. Rawles was very much more active than Mr. Rawles. She ran everything.

I had not seen the people before or since until I came down here and the time I went back and took my wife, who is a notary, up there, and she called him up. He was in the cellar, and I explained it all to him. I told him: T think you are being very foolish, but if that is what you want to do that is your business. You are conveying your entire estate away.’ And they said: ‘He has been the best friend we have had.

Whenever we wanted anything we could ⁵¹¹ get it.’ They came after the man three or four times, and I explained the agreement to them, and every one was happy. * * * I told both of them they would have no more interest in that property, and if he wanted he could convey it away to some one else, and they said they did not have any thought he was going to do anything like that.” On cross-examination he stated that he had no conversation with Mr. Rawles prior to the day the deed was executed