DUNCAN V. HENSLEY
248 Ark. 1083 (1970)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Duncan (H) sought review from a decree cancelling a deed conveying
440 acres of real property and a bill of sale conveying to him certain personal property.
FACTS: H and Hensley (W) were married September 16, 1964 at Kingsville, Georgia. At that
time W was conducting negotiations for the purchase of certain real estate in Covington,
Louisiana. The purchase was consummated, title being taken in the name of both H and W. The
parties operated a ranching operation for approximately three years. The Louisiana lands
were then sold for $79,000.00 and a portion of the proceeds were used in purchasing Newton
County lands, in the purchase of a house trailer in which they lived. H and W began a
ranching operation upon such lands. H and W entered into a property settlement agreement, in
contemplation of divorce. W was to receive the 440-acre farm located in Newton County,
Arkansas, together with the household furniture, cattle and horses and a 1968 Volkswagen
automobile. Any other automobiles, trucks or equipment registered in the name of H would be
his sole and exclusive property. H executed a quitclaim deed to W covering the Newton County
lands. The divorce decree incorporated the settlement. On February 4, 1969, W, executed and
delivered to H a quitclaim deed conveying to him the Newton County lands and a bill of sale
covering certain cattle, quarter horses, farm machinery, implements and tools situated on
the Newton County lands and the house trailer, also situated thereon. It recited a
consideration of $10.00 and other valuable consideration paid, and the bill of sale a
consideration of $10.00 and other legal considerations paid. Both instruments were recorded.
P filed her suit to cancel these instruments and the decree. The Chancellor court found
clear and convincing evidence that the conveyance was on grounds of physical duress and
rescinded them. The court found that W did this when H persuaded W to ride with him to an
isolated part of the county wherein H told W that she was going to sign everything over to
him or she was going to be dead. H also made threats against the life of one Bill Hardin and
his daughter who had accompanied W to work that day. W testified she believed H because she
had seen him in violent rages specifically referring to an instance when he had beaten a
horse in her presence and another time when he had threatened to kill the owner of a bull
that had been permitted to get in with the cows on the Louisiana ranch; that this violence
was demonstrated in a family argument that arose over the use of a television set; that
prior to their marriage H had told W that if she didn't marry him no one else would and she
considered this to be a threat. A third party testified that W had been crying when she came
into his office but that she made no oral objection to signing the papers. H appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment