Kees v. Green

38 Citing cases

  1. Frowen v. Blank

    493 Pa. 137 (Pa. 1981)   Cited 126 times
    Finding that a fiduciary duty "appears when the circumstances make it certain the parties do not deal on equal terms, but, on one side there is an overmastering influence, or, on the other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed"

    Once a confidential relationship is shown to have existed, it then becomes the obligation of the party attempting to enforce the terms of the agreement to establish that there has not been a breach of that trust. Scott Estate, 455 Pa. 429, 316 A.2d 883 (1974); Ruggieri v. West Forum Corp., supra; McClatchy's Estate, supra; Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 75 A.2d 602 (1950); Brooks v. Conston, 356 Pa. 69, 51 A.2d 684 (1947). We agree with Judge Spaeth in his dissent in Frowen II that if such a relationship did exist between the decedent and the appellee, finding that the decedent understood the terms of the agreement does not necessarily preclude a finding that the relationship had been breached.

  2. Buchanan v. Brentwood F. S. L. Assoc

    457 Pa. 135 (Pa. 1974)   Cited 125 times
    In Buchanan, the Supreme Court held that the question to be examined is whether there was an intent to hold property for the benefit of another.

    First, it is asserted that in the particular circumstances of these contracts, the mortgagor and mortgagee stood in confidential relation with each other. The existence, if proved, of a confidential relationship is sufficient justification for imposing a constructive trust, unless the dominating party can prove "by clear and satisfactory evidence," see Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 375, 75 A.2d 602, 605 (1950) (citing cases), that the contract was not tainted by his overweening bargaining position. A confidential relation may be found as a matter of law, see Truver v. Kennedy, 425 Pa. 294, 305-07, 229 A.2d 468, 474 (1967), but more often it is a matter of fact to be established by the evidence.

  3. Williams v. McCarroll

    374 Pa. 281 (Pa. 1953)   Cited 43 times

    It appears when the circumstances make it certain the parties do not deal on equal terms, but, on the one side there is an overmastering influence, or, on the other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed; . . . . In some cases the confidential relation is a conclusion of law, in others, it is a question of fact to be established by the evidence": Leedom v. Palmer, 274 Pa. 22, 25, 117 A. 410, 411, 412; Null's Estate, 302 Pa. 64, 68, 153 A. 137, 139; McCown v. Fraser, 327 Pa. 561, 564, 565, 192 A. 674, 676; Ringer v. Finfrock, 340 Pa. 458, 461, 462, 17 A.2d 348, 350.'. . .": Kees, Executor v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 374, 75 A.2d 2. In Phillips' Estate, 244 Pa. 35, 43, 90 A. 457, the Court said: "When a will is attacked on the ground of undue influence, 'It is necessary to bear in mind the meaning of the term __________; as a legal phrase it is used as denoting __________ something violative of legal duty __________.

  4. Barrett v. Heiner

    80 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1951)   Cited 27 times

    Plaintiff correctly and at great length sets forth the law with respect to a confidential relationship and the duty that arises when such relationship exists. It is unnecessary to discuss or review the authorities on the subject of confidential relationship, since we are convinced that under the facts no confidential relationship was established; and that even if it had been, the defendants fulfilled any obligation they might have had by proving that the deed was the free and voluntary act of the plaintiff, that it was not induced by the defendants, and that the plaintiff knew the nature, meaning, significance and consequences of his act: Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 75 A.2d 602; McCown v. Fraser, 327 Pa. 561, 192 A. 674; Matthaei v. Pownall, 235 Pa. 460, 84 A. 444. Plaintiff also complains of the chancellor's findings and conclusions. It is, by now, hornbook law that findings of fact by a chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses, especially when approved by the court in banc, will not be reversed by an appellate court if there is adequate evidence to sustain them: Roth v. Hartl, 365 Pa. 428, 75 A.2d 583; Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368 EQD, A.2d 602. The chancellor's findings of fact were supported by adequate evidence in this case and therefore they will not be disturbed.

  5. Rebidas v. Murasko

    450 Pa. Super. 546 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    Discussing the standards for rescission of a trust based upon mistake

    Id. Once a confidential relationship is found to exist, the proponent of a contract must show by clear and convincing evidence that "the contract was free, voluntary and an independent act of the other party, entered into with an understanding and knowledge of its nature, terms and consequences." Id. (quoting Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 375, 75 A.2d 602, 605 (1950)). "The general test for determining a [close and confidential] relationship is whether the parties did not deal on equal terms."

  6. Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc.

    124 F. Supp. 3d 550 (W.D. Pa. 2015)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating there was no intrusion claim where the personal information in question was “voluntarily provided” to the defendant

    In such a relationship, reliance need not be alleged.” [ECF No. 37 at 12]. The burden of proof for establishing a fiduciary relationship is on the party asserting it. Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 75 A.2d 602, 603 (1950). Although Defendants may have received confidential information when he filled prescriptions at their retail pharmacies, this does not create a fiduciary relationship.

  7. Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 14-0980 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 9, 2015)

    " [ECF No. 37 at 12]. The burden of proof for establishing a fiduciary relationship is on the party asserting it. Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 75 A.2d 602, 603 (1950). Although Defendants may have received confidential information when he filled prescriptions at their retail pharmacies, this does not create a fiduciary relationship.

  8. Steinberg v. CVS Caremark Corp.

    899 F. Supp. 2d 331 (E.D. Pa. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing a UTPCPL claim because it lacked "specific factual allegations as to the injury . . . sustained" on the basis of a pharmacy's de-identifying purchaser information without any specifically identified resulting loss

    The burden of proof for establishing a fiduciary relationship is on the party asserting it. Kees v. Green, 365 Pa. 368, 75 A.2d 602, 603 (1950). The Court must reject the plaintiffs' otherwise bare legal conclusion that a fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

  9. Steinberg v. CVS Caremark Corp.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2428 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2012)

    See, e.g., Washington Steel Corp. v. TW Corp., 602 F.2d 594, 599 (3d Cir. 1979), overrruled on other grounds, Clark v. K-Mart Corp., 979 F.2d 965 (3d Cir. 1992). The burden of proof for establishing a fiduciary relationship is on the party asserting it. Kees v. Green, 75 A.2d 602, 603 (Pa. 1950). The Court must reject the plaintiffs' otherwise bare legal conclusion that a fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

  10. Mente Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc. v. GMAC

    728 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Pa. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Denying a motion for a new trial based in part on alleged jury confusion resulting from the scope of expert testimony and noting that any confusion was cured by "an appropriate jury instruction"

    Pennsylvania courts generally do not consider undue influence to determine the validity of a release outside the context of trust and estate actions. See McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006); Weir v. Estate of Ciao, 556 A.2d 819 (Pa. 1989); In re Estate of Pedrick, 482 A.2d 215 (Pa. 1984); Kees v. Green, 75 A.2d 602 (Pa. 1950). In such cases, undue influence is exerted "when a party to a confidential relationship abuses that relation to secure personal advantages."