The Montana Supreme Court ruled that elderly brothers were entitled to rescission of an agreement to sell their ranch that included a grantor-support agreement binding the buyers to provide future assistance to them with end-of-life issues, where the purchasers breached the agreement, left the brothers with no ability to pay for their healthcare or other needs, and the gift deed transferring the ranch to the buyers that the brothers had signed was the result of undue influence. Helvik v. Tuscano, 2025 WL 1874982, 2025 MT 150 (Mont. July 8, 2025).
Brothers Sidney and Julian Helvik lived and worked at a ranch their family had owned since 1947. Sidney was 80 years old and was being treated for prostate cancer, and Julian suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. In 2018, Sidney began to think about the ranch’s future, and the brothers sold their sheep and cattle.
Their neighbors, Wesley and Karen Tuscano, and Wesley’s brother-in-law, Jackson Gardner, asked the Helviks if they could purchase part of their ranch. The Helviks agreed to sell a small portion of the ranch to a limited liability company Wesley was affiliated with. The Helviks signed the sale agreement in March 2018 but were not involved in preparing the agreement and were not represented or advised by an attorney.
In 2019, Julian’s condition worsened, and Sidney had the rest of the ranch appraised. Wesley visited occasionally, and Sidney told him about Julian’s deterioration. After injuring himself during a home repair, Sidney asked Wesley if he would like to buy the rest of the ranch. In April 2020, Wesley brought a sales agreement to the Helviks providing that he would execute a promissory note to them for $500,000 and make payments of $25,000 twice a year until both Helviks died or the debt was paid off. The agreement provided that the Helviks would sign a quitclaim deed granting the entire ranch to the Tuscanos but reserving a life estate for the Helviks in their home. The agreement also contained a provision acknowledging that the Helviks were both over 80 years old and had no immediate family and that the Tuscanos would assist them with end-of-life issues, including finding healthcare, assistance with tax preparation, estate planning, and, if necessary, another place to live. The Helviks remained responsible for paying for their own expenses and care. They were not involved in preparing the documents or represented by an attorney.
One week before the first payment to the Helviks was due under the sales agreement, Wesley told Sidney and Julian to sign a document that Sidney thought was the quitclaim deed. However, it actually was a gift deed purporting to transfer the ranch to the Tuscanos without any consideration and without the reservation of the life estate in the Helviks’ home. The Tuscanos later used the gift deed to obtain a $402,206 mortgage on the Helviks’ ranch. No payments were ever made to the Helviks.
After Sidney told his step-daughter, Jacqueline Conner, that he had not received any payments, Jacqueline and her husband looked at the documents and discovered that Sidney had signed the gift deed instead of the quitclaim deed.
The Helviks filed a lawsuit against the Tuscanos, alleging that the agreement and gift deed were the result of undue influence and fraud and that the Tuscanos had breached the sales agreement. They sought a declaration that the agreement and gift deed were void and rescinded and that the Helviks owned the ranch.
The jury found that the Tuscanos had breached the sales agreement and awarded damages. The jury also found that the gift deed was invalid because of undue influence. However, the district court concluded that the Helviks were entitled to rescission of the agreement as a matter of equity, quieted title of the ranch in their favor, and vacated the award of damages.
The Montana Supreme Court ruled that there are equitable exceptions in property law where legal remedies are inadequate, including the doctrine of equitable rescission in the context of grantor-support agreements, i.e., agreements whereby elderly individuals convey property to those in whom they have trust and confidence, where the consideration is wholly or partially an agreement for future support and maintenance. Equitable remedies are available because the transferees owe fiduciary duties under grantor-support agreements. Because the Tuscanos breached the agreement, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment vacating the award of damages, rescinding the agreement, and returning the ranch to the Helviks unencumbered by the Tuscanos’ mortgage.
The court also affirmed the district court’s rulings prohibiting the admission of evidence of an oral agreement to transfer land and evidence of an Adult Protective Service investigation. In addition, the court determined that by failing to raise the issue below, the Tuscanos had waived their argument that the jury had been improperly instructed on the law of undue influence and found that the district court had properly granted Jacqueline’s motion for summary judgment on their claim that she had engaged in tortious interference. However, it denied Jacqueline’s request for attorney fees.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
