ARK.] HOWARD V. RAYNER. 721
HOWARD V. RAYNER. 4-4272 •• -Opinion delivered May 11, 1936. - TRU. STS.—Where, in an aCtion instituted against an attorney to ha— ve him declared a trustee to the extent Of certain' lands held 'by him; for the- benefit of the plaintiff, the evidence is that plain-. tiff's half sister, who .was an aged: negro woman, conveyed the :lands which were heavily encumbered to . the attorney who agreed to discharge the indebtedness and furnish the old woman with, a home aS long as she lived; -tha.t the agreement was fair and that She understood it, is sufficient to . Suliport the decree• denying the • petition.' " Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court ; J. F. Gaiut-ney, Chancellor ; affirined: A. R. Shaler and Gathings,.fo ' r appellant. • R. V; Wheeler, Charles •. Frierson and Charles Frierson, Jr., for appellee. BUTLER, J. On April' 10, 1935, the appellant, as half-brother and heir. of 'Ella Wofford, . brought this action against the appellee alleging in effect that appellee had procured a deed to certain lands in Crittenden county by reason of undue influence exerted upon the grantor, an aged negro woman; who at the time did not understand the legal effect of her act, but intended' :only to authorize appellee, her attorney,- to more effectively handle her affairs. There was the further allegation that notwithstanding such fact and in repudiation of the trust reposed in appellee, he claimed to be the absolute owner of the property. The prayer was. that appellee, be' declared trustee 'for appellant. An answer was filed, awl upon the isstte joined and evidence adduced, ! the court fonnd in favor of the appellee entering a decree dismissing appellant's complaint for want of. . equity. From. that •decree is this appeal.
722 HOWAR1) V. RAYNER. [192 The land involved consists of a half section in section 9, township . 5 north , range r 7 east, ancL a ten-acre tract and . eighty acres in section 36 .of the same, township and range. There were some lots in the town of Ed-mondson contained in the deed, kit these appear to have passed out of the case and no further mention of them will be made. . The 410 acres of land , .were acquired by William Wofford, a negro man, and 'upon the land in section 9, he and his wife; Ella . Wofford, made their home. He was industrious a.nd frugal, improved the property. and WaS in good circumstances until the latter years of his life. When he becam.e old. and no longer. able• to look after his • affairs as in former times, some years before his . death, his property became heavily involved. He 'had given. several Mortgages, which he Was , unable to pay. Foreclosure. suits threatened and, he. was unable to refinance his obligations or raise the funds for the proper operation of his farm. .In.this state of his affairs, he employed Mr. Kenneth Rayner, the appellee, who was endeavoring . ,to obtain indulgenCe from the ,mortgagees when Willia Wófford died in the Spring 'Of 1933. No one kehlstO have knOwn the exact age of William Wof-ford or of hiS wife, but William 'was • appaxently be-tween-75' and 80 , years. of age at his death. He' left a will -by . which he devised his' real'property-to his' wife and bequeathed :to- her , the major portion of . his• personal property.. RaYner became Ella Wofford's attorney, represented her in•the matter Of probating , the will and successfully resisted an attack upon it. He experienced great difficulty' in the financing of the farm for the 'purpose of making . a-crop in . 1933, but finally' accomPlished this thrOugh ' the means . of an administrator who was able 'to 'raise the funds necessary for -that purpose. EffOrts were renewed . to refinance the property, but without sbccess,. and it was apparent in the latter part of 1933- that foreclosure 'proceedings would soon be instituted. Ella • Wofford and her husband had been•married many years . and she* seems to have been devoted . to him and mourned his death to a great degree. Be always managed and looked after all their affairs and•when he
ARK.] HOWARD V. RAYNER. 723 died she was helpless. 'It was her desire to be freed of the load of debt and to secure' for herself a home , for:the, remainder of her life: ThiS became generally known and there were several 'who 'contemplated making some trade with her by which they would take over the farmS and•assumethe debts, giving to her a 'home and , support for the : remainder of her .life. , .Nothing, came ,of these, however, largely because ,of the state of the title and.the opinion . entertained that j.t .was necessary that Ella proceed through the. courts in ,order to eonvey title. It seems that William s .Wofford realized he could never pay off his-indebtedness, and--aArade,was-talked of;-, between him and : a neighboring white.planter.by . which the latter was to:take the farms and . give.Wofford a certain tract
of land or some other consideration; , .But.this trade fell . through because of- the ,interference . of some , of . the .old negro 's advisers. .The, fact .further appears that.,W,i17 liam Wofford . was .unable tonance 'his .farming.oper&- tions for 1933, and . no arrangement ;for, that purpose . had been effected prior . to his, death.? JR the 'course of events relating to Ella Wofford's affairs,.however, nothing had been done. to Telieve her financial ,situation..or tress . 'of mind until the, latter,part of:October, 1933, when Rayner proposed that if . she would deed him the property he wOUld give her a hoMe, manage the . farms,. and' try to pay Off the . obligations. Ella ,agreed to this .: and the deed wliich iS the Subject-matter of this litiiation . .wa the reSnit. . . The Jaw governing 'the' relation and dealings between , attorneys and 'clients is well settled, • nip out . whiCh learnea-Counsel for the ' lrtigants in ihis , case are agreed,. Tte princiPles apPlicable have been well Stated' in 'cases cited .1:-;Y' appellant and appellee We quote ' first -freni 3 A. & E. Enc. of Law, p. 33, and 'Thomas v. Turner's Admr., 1 87 Va. 1, 12 S. E." 149, • cited with apprOval Thweatt . v. Freeman .; 73 Ark. .575, 84 S. ' W. .720'. "Equity. regards 'the 'relation of attorney . and ,Cli6nt natch in the Same' light as 'that' of guardian 'and 'ward, and , will relieVe a client from hard' 'bargains; or from an undue 'advantage seCured , over him 'by •his attorhe. And the client; . 'in . ordet to secure such relief, is 'net
724 HOWARD gy . RAYNER. [192 bound to show that there has been any imposition or fraud, nor iS the transaction ,necessarily void; but if .it is .a transaction in which the relation between the parties exerted or might reasonably have exerted any , influence in the attorney's favor, then the burden of establishing its perfect fairness is, thrown upon the attorney." "It is• the duty of an attorney to give his client the benefit of his best judgment, advice arid exertion and it would be a just reproach to the law if he . Avere permitted tO bring his own- personal interest • into conflict with that duty by seeuring a' benefit to•himself through the influence which the' relation . implies. All transactions between the parties, to -be•upheld in a court of eqnity,- must be uberrirna fides, and the bnus'is on thcattorney to show not only that'no . undne ! influence was used-, or adVantage taken, but that he gave his-client -all he information' and advice as . against -himSelf that ' was- neCessary to- enable him to act understandingly: . He Must show,' 'in other words, (1) that the transaction . was- perfeCtly fair; (2) that it was entered into by Alio . client' freely,.arid •(3) that it was entered into 'with such a- -understanding 'of the nature and extent of -his rights . . as to enable the client to thorOughly'coniiirehend ' the scope and 'effeCt ! of it.'" . Quoting from 6 C. J., § 211, p.'.687, cited , With approval in Goode v. KingY189 Ark -. 1093, 76 S. W. (2d) 300, "There ' is -no-necessary ineaiMeity 'fel- 'dealing -betWeen clients and attoiney, and,-althOUgh tranSactionS between them will be closely . scrutinized, yet . theSe which are, obViously fair • and -just will be 'upheld. To ''entitle the Client to relief from a contract or agreethent entered into ' with his attorney, it mast be shown that the client has' suffered soine injury throngh an abUse 'of ainfidence on the part of -his attorney.."' • , ; The. evidence, . with respect to the execution of. the deed and the circumstances immediately. , preceding, to which these principles are applicable, is, mot in dispute. It is in effect as follows : Ella Wofford was in Memphis on, .a visit when the agreement, between..her and Mr. Rayner was made. In company with Mr. Rayner and two of . her colored friends, a man and a woman, she : went to
ARK.] HOWARD V. RAYNER. 725 the office of one of the leading attorneys of the city of Memphis with whom Mr. Rayner had, perhaps, previously conversed with relation to the consunimation of the agreement between himself and Ella Wofford. When the purpose of their visit was made known, the attorney sUggested that Mr. Rayner be absent during the conversation he. (the attorney) was to have with Ella. Accordingly, Mr. Rayner left and • the attorney proceeded to interrogate Ella with respect to the . disposition of her property, and her reasons for the proposed conveYance of it to Mr. Rayner. She indicated to the attorney what her - desires- were- and--he-ad-vised- her-as-to the Method to be employed 'to carry those desires . into effect. On that occasion she appea. red to•thoroughly understand.the plan and left the attorney's office with the purpose of returning when .the necessary instruments were • prepared to execute the same. Later, with her two colored friends, she did return to the office of the attorney and the papers prepared were read oVer and thoroughly , ex. plained to her. The first was the deed reciting a nominal consideration, and the other was a contract in which that consideration was' explained and set out in detail, to the effect that Mr. Rayner would take charge of the prOperties,• endeavor to pay off the indebtedness, and provide a home for Ella consisting of a dwelling house and a few acres adjoining; The meaning and effect of the deed and collateral contract was again explained to , Ella,' and pains were taken to see that she understood thoroughly what the effect would be. She declared that. she did' understand, and that the deed and contract' ac-coinplished the thing she watited done. The tnetids ot Ella, who had accompanied her, co'rroborated the testimony of the attorney and testified that she expressed to them that she had accomplished the purpose she had in mind. Others who testified in the . case, stated that she apPeared to be greatly relieved and thoroughly satisfied with what she had done. It wag in evidence that in addition to the stipulations in the written contract prepared by the attorney, Mr. .Rayner had made 'Ella other promises to the effeet that he would look' after her and give her half-brother a hoMe and the use of ten acres of
726 HOWARD v. RAYNER: [192 land in section 36. It appears that Rayner carried out these verbal( promises: He perinitted the half-brother to reMain: in possession of the ten acres of land and to use it untir,hd died some time during the year, 1935. Also; after the exeCution ,of the deed, Ella, at the direction of :Rayner, went' ;to a mercantile establishment in Memphis:and bought articles for her personal use which were . charged, to 'Rayfier's acCount. A few days after the execution of the:deed she became Rayner learned of:this and left,his home in Memphis and went to Ella's hohie in Crittenden , county where he found a doctor in attendance: He:wanted to remove the old woman ,to hospital in Memphis; but the*doctor advised against this. Rayner then., told:the doctor to visit Ella • as often as required,: and told 'other§ in attendance to procure for her everything necessary and, in event they could not get it there, , --to, telephone him in Memphis. It . developed that Ella was afflicted with‘a. mortal illness:and she died the night after , Rayner's visit. When apprised of her death, Rayner again , went to her home and procured for her body decent interment and paid the necessary‘expenses. As,, tending to- support the contention that Rayner had :unduly influenced , Ella and procured property the value : of :whieh' , was greatly in excess of the obligation he, had-ag sumed and the indebtedness for : whiCh the property was burdened, some eleven or twelve witnesses wereintroduced . by the appellant to egtablish the Value Of the property conveyed by Ella to: Rayner. About:an eqnal: nuinber ,-of witnesses' testified on behalf of : the appellee., 'FrOni this testimony it appears certain that the 320 aeres of land in section 9 was naturally very'fertile .and well drained, -While the ,-80 acres in section 36 was not well adapted to, the growth of staple crops, and its chief value in its -location , with : respect. to highways on which it fronted On two sides. The fact was further established that at the 'time of the cenveyance attacked in this action both the 320-acre:and : 80-aere tracts were ina bad 'state'of repair, a part of the 320-acre tract havl ing noXious grasses upon it; and the tenant houses in a dilapidated' Condition.
ARE1 HOWARD V. RAYNER. 727 The witnesses for the appellant. testified • that in their opinion' the 320 .: aere tract in the . fall of 1933 :conld have been sold for; froni $60 to $65 an . acre; and the value at that time placed on the 80-acre tract . was :from.$30 to $40• per aere.- . :Some ':Witnesses testified, without nanding the date, that the larger tract had a::Market value Of from $70 to $75 an acre. The witnesseS called , by the appellee appear to have been : equally 'as; well' qualified to judge the market value of the lands involved as those who testified on behalf of the appellant. Several of these placed the value of the 'larger tract :in the fall' of 33 at $30 an acre.- Two--..witnesses placed it at -from $40 to $50, another at $40, two at from $25 to $30, and two at $25 an here: The values;as placed npon the property by appellant's switnesses, when averaged,„ approximate $55 an acre, and as placed:by witnesses for the ap-pellee at $35 an' acre. The witnesses for appellee-place the value of the 80-acre tract at abont $20 an 'acre. In giying a basis for the yalnes ; fixed;bY thOM,; Othe of. the :witnesses for the appellee ,took into conSideration the fact that the : farms were:1n a:bad state of: repair.: and the general economic situation prevailing in the fall of 1933. . It Was , in evidence that at that 'Eine tlie Market valte of farm lands had greatly depreciated, in .fact, there was practically no market or transfers except under. foreclosure proceedings. As tending to show the value of the equity , of William Wofford, it is a-significant fact that it was not deemed' sufficient by parties approached for the purpose of obtaining , additional ad-, vances to justify same. . . . There is little, if any, dispute as-to the amount of the: debts seoured byraortgages, 'and the amount of 'taxes which stood as. .a charge on ; the l̀ands which, at nie :firm 'of the conveyance to Rayner, approximated $13,000,.Considering the values as placed by: witnesses :for the ;appel-lee, the advantage to Rayner,' as viewed under :condition's preVailing at the time the' deed . waS eXecnted; was Very problematical, and it mnst be -also taken into . . consideration that in order 'to operate the farms Rayner MuSt have necessarily' financed theni, which, in the light of experience, is a. hazardons undertaking. '
728 [192 • It was the conclusion of the chancellor That th e - ap-pellee had affirmatively shown that the transaction was fair, entered into by his client freely, and with a full understanding of its nature and effect, and we cannot say that his conclusion was against the preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, under well settled principles, the decree is affirmed. HUMPHREYS and MEHAFFY, JJ., dissent.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.