This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps, parents, alleged that they conveyed their 94.12-acre dairy farm to D, daughter, reserving to themselves a life estate. They claimed that the deed should be set aside on three grounds, two of which are closely related: (1) that both of them lacked sufficient capacity to execute the deed; (2) that D failed to 'provide bargained-for consideration;' and (3) that 'any consideration that was mentioned [in] the alleged deed . . ., was sham consideration and not valid to support any conveyance.' D was also an attorney and represented Ps on many occasions, and she had power of attorney over the father. The mother was not competent and suffered from dementia. Three medical doctors testified as to her competence. At one point, Ps gave D a home. And a decade later conveyed their 94.12-acre dairy farm to D for $30,000, with the farm’s worth being more than $300,000. D claimed it was repayment for all the work done by D for Ps over the years. The court found for Ps in that there was no proof that D had ever paid the $30,000 in cash or even equivalents, and the mother lacked the capacity to execute the deed. The $30,000 consideration was clearly inadequate. The mother suffered from dementia, and the consideration is clearly inadequate. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.