Henkle v. Henkle

Facts

P had owned a two-hundred-twenty-acre farm. P permitted her grandson, John, to operate and manage her farm. John demonstrated considerable skill and knowledge in managing the farm. John entrusted many of her farm-related and business affairs to him. P executed a warranty deed conveying most of the Farm to John while reserving a life estate for herself. she also executed another warranty deed conveying 1.7 acres of the farm to her son, Robert. On that date, John drove P to a parking area in front of the law office of P's long-time attorney. P did not go to the office because she had difficulty climbing stairs. As she sat on the passenger's side P signed documents that John handed to her. John Henkle was the only other person present at the time P signed these deeds. She admitted knowing that the documents were deeds, but that she did not read them. John died intestate on April 21, 1988. He was survived by his wife, Annette J. Henkle, and his son, Jacob R. Henkle, (Ds) both of whom stand to inherit the Henkle Farm as the statutory beneficiaries of his estate. P decided to file a lawsuit to set aside the deed. Ds filed a motion for summary judgment. In the deposition, P indicated that it was always her desire that the Farm should remain in the Henkle family. It was her understanding that John would operate the farm and that sometime in the future he would convey home sites on the property to three of his brothers. P was aware in the two and one-half months following the execution of the deed but before John's death that she had signed the deed that conveyed the property to John and that he had not conveyed the home sites to his brothers as he promised. She did not object because at that time his brothers did not want the property. The court ruled that P failed to allege facts in support of her complaint to justify the extreme measure of overturning a deed.' P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.