Mabel Dixon, age 84, had a rocky relationship with her son, Stevan. She sometimes complained that Stevan did not do enough for her. Nevertheless, Mrs. Dixon thought she detected a personality change in him in October 1998 and she decided to give him her house in exchange for $5 "and other love and consideration." At the same time, Mrs. Dixon and Stevan also signed a lifetime agreement under which Stevan agreed to care for Mrs. Dixon and maintain her house.

The relationship between mother and son soured again, however, and after a confrontation in 2001, Mrs. Dixon asked Stevan to leave her home and she changed the locks. She also requested that Stevan give the house back to her. When Stevan refused, Mrs. Dixon sued him, arguing that the sale of the house to him should be voided because he did not fulfill his side of the bargain and also that Stevan had coerced Mrs. Dixon into giving him the house in the first place. A lower court determined that Mrs. Dixon had failed to prove that the sale of the house should be set aside. Mrs. Dixon appealed.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina agrees with the lower court. The court rules that because Stevan provided some care, although not enough to satisfy Mrs. Dixon, he had lived up to the care agreement. The court goes on to write that, "Although it is questionable whether Mother made a good decision when she conveyed her property to Son, we find the decision was one of her own free will."

The moral of the story: don't give your house to your children, especially if there has been any difficulty between you in the past.