Waldron answered the complaint on January 26, 2006. Marguerite subsequently died, and James, as the executor of her estate, was substituted as a plaintiff The trial court conducted a bench trial on June 1 1, 2009.
At the conclusion of Sesame’s case-in-chief, Waldron moved for a judgment as a matter of 372*372 arguing that James had failed to prove that Waldron had made a representation “with intent to deceive. ” The trial court granted that motion, and it entered a Judgment on partial findings against James and the estate on August 13, 2009.
James filed his notice of appeal on August 25, 2009. On appeal, James first argues that the trial court erred In granting Wallop’s motion for a Judgment on partial findings because the law does not require him to prove an intent to deceive in order to obtain a rescission of a deed eased on fraud. James contends that he proved that Waldron intended to deceive him into executing the deed.
James presented evidence indicating that Marguerite, his mother, had deeded him certain real property.
Marguerite and Waldron then moved Into a mobile home on that property with the permission of James. Waldron soon began requesting that James deed to Waldron and Marguerite the parcel of property on which the mobile home rested. James consented to Wallop’s request only after Waldron had represented that he and Marguerite had married, which was not true. James testified that he never would have executed the deed transferring the property Jointly to Marguerite and Waldron, with rights of survivorship, if he had known the truth.
In the present context, that evidence presented a prima facie case of misrepresentation without further proof of Wallop’s Intent to deceive. Thus, the trial court erred In granting Wallop’s mouton Tort a Judgment on partial Totaling. Sesame’s evidence showed that, some time after James had executed the deed to Marguerite and Waldron, Waldron convinced Marguerite to deed the property solely to him. James argues that, for certain technical reasons, that deed did not effectively pass legal title in the property to Waldron.
The court did not need to address that issue because they did not need to resolve the issue of Marguerite compliance with the technical requirements for deeding real property in order to properly adjudicate Sesame’s claim for rescission.
James finally argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a trial by Jury. After examining the pleadings to determine the true nature of the relief sought, the court concludes that James was not entitled to a Jury trial. In his complaint, James sought to have the deed to Marguerite and Waldron rescinded.
The Supreme court (Lorenz c.
Brothers) has held that there is no right to a trial by Jury in an action seeking to set aside a deed. Therefore, James has not cited to this court a single case supporting his position that he should receive a Jury trial on his rescission claim. Thus, it was concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Sesame’s demand for a trial by Jury. Issue or Issues of Law: Whether an intent to deceive is necessary for fraudulent misrepresentation to occur. Holding & Reasoning of Court