Duncan v. Hensley

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970 · Contracts

ContractsDuressRescissionEquityduressphysical threatsrescissioncancellation of deed

Facts

After the parties divorced, appellee owned a 440-acre Newton County farm and related personal property under a property settlement incorporated into the divorce decree. On February 4, 1969, appellant met appellee at her workplace, got her into his truck, drove her onto a dirt road, and told her she would sign everything over to him or be dead; he also threatened others close to her. The parties then went to a realtor's office, where appellee executed a quitclaim deed and bill of sale conveying the land, livestock, equipment, and trailer to appellant, and the instruments were immediately recorded. Appellee testified she was terrified because of appellant's threats and prior violent conduct known to her, and she sought legal help within days before filing suit to cancel the instruments.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficiently clear and convincing to support cancellation of the deed and bill of sale on the ground that appellee executed them under physical duress. Also, whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence about the parties' financial condition and relationship before the divorce decree and in treating the pleadings as amended to conform to the proof.

Rule

To cancel a conveyance for duress, the complaining party must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the instrument was induced by actual violence or threats that created fear of death, great bodily injury, or other grievous wrong sufficient, under all the facts and circumstances, to impair deliberate judgment so that the instrument, though signed, was not voluntarily agreed to. In equity, the court may consider the parties' mental capacity, surrounding circumstances, and relationship to determine the real influence producing the conveyance. Evidence beyond the original pleadings may be received, and the pleadings treated as amended to conform to the proof, when the trial court permits such proof over objection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After divorcing, Nora Keene owned a cabin and equipment outside Fayetteville, Arkansas. Her former husband, Wade Mercer, drove her to a secluded turnout in the Ozarks, said she would be "dead before sunset" unless she signed a deed and bill of sale to him, and she signed later that day because she knew he had previously beaten animals and threatened neighbors during angry outbursts.

If Nora sues in equity to cancel both instruments, which is the strongest basis for relief?

Explanation. A court of equity may cancel a conveyance executed under duress when the complaining party proves by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that actual threats caused fear of death, great bodily injury, or comparable grievous wrong, so that the instrument, though signed, was not voluntarily agreed to. The presence of a scrivener or silence at signing does not defeat relief if the threats overbore the grantor's judgment.