Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D is a Christian Science practitioner. He assists in the healing process and maintains a confidential and spiritual relationship with his patients. He met P in the autumn of 1972 at a time when P was seriously considering making a full commitment to Christian Science. They soon fell in love and began to seriously consider marriage. Several times a week during their relationship P obtained treatment from D. P testified that she exalted practitioners in her mind and that she trusted D because of her affection for him and because of his role as a practitioner. In the spring of 1973, P asked D to assist her in locating an apartment house to be purchased by her alone. They located the property and he advised her concerning the terms of her offer. During the negotiations, D began to encourage P to allow him to join her as a partner in the purchase and operation of the property in an effort to secure an agreement. P declined because of her desire for the security that sole ownership would provide.D became angry and told her that she was ungrateful for all that he had done for her. He stated that her refusal violated the tenets of Christian Science. He told her that she was incapable financially, intellectually, and emotionally of purchasing and operating the apartment house alone. She testified that D's financial argument was the determining factor in her decision to accept him as an equal partner and designate him as a purchaser in the earnest money agreement. The deed was taken in P's name alone, at D's request, for tax reasons. D did not sign the mortgage, the promissory note, and the second deed of trust. P advanced nearly $13,000, and D only provided $2,987.50. D stated he had other immediate obligations and would pay later. Other than one $500 payment, D never paid any more money for the down payment, loan, or maintenance and operation expenses. D continually assured P that he would pay at a later date, frequently becoming angry with her for making such requests. On April 1, 1973, P gave D a written acknowledgment of his partnership interest in the apartment house. Because of their close relationship, P believed D would ultimately provide the money. This close relationship terminated in July 1975. The parties had brief contact in May 1976 when P refused to consider D's suggestion that he might help with an upcoming balloon payment. In August 1977 D attempted to secure a quitclaim deed from P. P then retained an attorney, who prepared an accounting between the parties and asked D to review it. P proffered a sum of money to reimburse him for the monies he had advanced, but D did not respond to the accompanying letter nor cash the check. P filed this action. The trial court found that D’s performance as a practitioner had an immense influence on P and caused her to repose in him an extraordinary amount of trust and confidence. It found that D’s emotional and spiritual influence upon P made her particularly susceptible to his undue influence in all material dealings between them. It found that D exercised undue influence over P in persuading her to return a promissory note he had given her for a $3,900 loan. D brought to bear upon P all of the spiritual and highly charged emotional factors that dominated their relationship by asserting P had no right to the note because of all he had done for her. D told her it was contrary to the tenets of Christian Science to resist returning the note to him. The court found that D used undue influence in persuading P to take out a loan to purchase hot water heaters for the apartment building and to obligate herself alone on that loan. P got the verdict and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co