## Facts

- Husband and wife owned, as tenants by the entirety, a 126.5-acre farm with improvements and a separate factory building and lot.
- Husband executed deeds transferring his interest in both properties to a corporation wholly owned by the wife, with the wife joining in the conveyance.
- Husband alleged the conveyances were procured by duress, leaving him without real property or assets.
- The marriage had deteriorated, with conflict involving care and treatment for the parties’ child diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia.
- Husband testified the wife demanded the transfers and, beginning in late 1952, used threats to compel compliance, including threats of violence by “gangsters,” false arrest, and poisoning with arsenic.
- Husband testified he feared for his safety; the trial judge observed that he displayed “great fear” while testifying.
- After the conveyances, the wife and her corporation contracted to sell a substantial portion of the farm to an intervening purchaser for $23,000, which the complaint alleged was below market value.
- Husband sought equitable relief, including reconveyance of a one-half interest or, alternatively, imposition of a trust for the children’s benefit affecting the purchasers.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorably to the husband, he presented a prima facie case that the conveyances were induced by duress, precluding dismissal at the close of his case.
2. What types of threats and resulting fear constitute duress sufficient to render a conveyance voidable, particularly in a spousal setting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment affirming dismissal and set aside the trial court’s dismissal.
- The court held that the husband’s testimony, if believed, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of duress.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings so defendants could answer and present evidence and the trier of fact could determine credibility and whether duress occurred.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s proofs, the court must accept plaintiff’s evidence as true, draw legitimate inferences in plaintiff’s favor, and deny dismissal if a factfinder could rule for plaintiff.
- Duress consists of wrongful pressure that overcomes free agency and constrains a party to act against will; it renders a contract or conveyance voidable.
- Threats supporting duress include threats producing fear of loss of life, serious bodily harm, great danger, or imprisonment, including threats of violence or false arrest.
- Whether a party’s will was overborne is typically a fact question dependent on surrounding circumstances and the person’s condition and vulnerabilities.
- The existence of incidental economic benefit from a challenged transaction does not defeat a duress claim at the prima facie stage; the central inquiry is compulsion versus voluntary choice.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged threats to the husband’s life, safety, and liberty, credited for purposes of a dismissal motion, could support a finding that his conveyances to his wife’s corporation were not voluntary; the matter required a full factual hearing with both sides’ evidence.


Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 20 N.J. 359, 120 A.2d 11 (N.J. 1956)