Adams v. Adams

• Decision Date: 25 October 1941
• Docket Number: 37701
• Citation: 156 S.W.2d 610,348 Mo. 1041
• Parties: Ada Adams v. Melvin Adams, Appellant, Della Adams, Roy Adams, May Fowler, Pearl Cook, Clarence Adams, George Adams, Bertha Adams, Ella Adams, Hollie Adams, Opal Adams, and Laura Jane Adams, Defendants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

156 S.W.2d 610

348 Mo. 1041

Ada Adams v. Melvin Adams, Appellant, Della Adams, Roy Adams, May Fowler, Pearl Cook, Clarence Adams, George Adams, Bertha Adams, Ella Adams, Hollie Adams, Opal Adams, and Laura Jane Adams, Defendants

No. 37701

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 25, 1941

Rehearing Denied December 16, 1941.

Appeal from Scott Circuit Court; Hon. Frank Kelly, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

A M. Spradling for appellant.

(1) It is a well settled and recognized principle of law that when one pays the purchase price of real estate and takes the title in another, a trust results in favor of the party who paid the purchase price. Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 101; Plumb v. Cooper, 121 Mo. 668; Butler v Carpenter, 163 Mo. 597; Stevens v. Fitzpatrick, 218 Mo. 708. (2) When children purchase property, or furnish the money for the purchase of property, and the title is taken in the parents. Under such state of facts the presumption is that a trust results in favor of the child who furnished the money. 65 C. J. 416, sec. 177; 2 Bogert on Trusts, 1404, sec. 460; Roberts v. Remy, 46 N.E. 1066; Stevens v. Fitzpatrick, 218 Mo. 708; Gerace v. Gerace, 16 N.E.2d 6; Pinkinson v. Pinkinson, 117 A. 48; Rickes v. Rickes, 141 N.E. 486; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 76 A. 26; Clark v. Clark, 86 S.W.2d 937. (3) In the event the court should decide that defendant is not entitled to the real estate in controversy (which we do not think it will so hold), then he would be entitled to a reimbursement for the taxes paid by him and the improvements made thereon. These taxes were paid by defendant in good faith, he believing that he was the owner of the real estate. Starks v. Kirchgraber, 134 Mo.App. 211; O'Donnell v. Mathews, 284 S.W. 204; Smith v. Mount, 149 Mo.App. 668; Grogan v. Grogan, 177 S.W. 649. (4) The relationship of the parties created no presumption of gift or advancement and the evidence created a presumption of a resulting trust. 65 C. J. 416, sec. 177; 2 Bogert on Trusts, 1404, sec. 460; Roberts v. Remy, 46 N.E. 1066; Pinkinson v. Pinkinson, 117 A. 48; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 76 A. 26.

J. Grant Frye and Gerald B. Rowan for respondent.

(1) The burden of proof in this case rested upon Melvin Adams to prove an implied or resulting trust by clear, cogent, positive, and convincing evidence such as to exclude every reasonable doubt from the Chancellor's mind. Parker v. Blakely, 93 S.W.2d 981; Little v. Mettee, 43 S.W.2d 1024; Medlin v. Morris, 143 S.W. 86; Dodge v. Thomas, 266 Ill. 76, 107 N.E. 261; Tichenor v. Bowman, 133 S.W.2d 324; Mays v. Jackson, 145 S.W.2d 392. (2) In this case Melvine Adams relies upon the declarations of the holders of the legal title, which declarations are very equivocal and general; and the declarants being since dead, such evidence is entitled to small weight in establishing a resulting trust. Kerr v. Brown, 143 Mo. 82, 49 S.W. 992; Authorities (1), supra; Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 86. (3) A resulting trust arises from facts and acts occurring at the time of the taking of the title, and no acts subsequent thereto can determine whether or not there was a trust, if one did not exist by virtue of the facts and acts at the time title passed. Stevenson v. Haynes, 119 S.W. 346; Bender v. Bender, 200 S.W. 930; Phillips v. Phillips, 81 N.J.Eq. 459; Gaugh v. Gaugh, 11 S.W.2d 746; Shelton v. Harrison, 182 Mo.App. 404, 167 S.W. 634; Clark v. Clark, 4 S.W.2d 981; Parker v. Blakely, 93 S.W.2d 981; Perry on Trusts, p. 114, sec. 133. (4) Melvin Adams must prove that not only did he pay the purchase price for the conveyance from his own funds, but that he paid the money as the purchase price and not as a loan. Since his father and mother signed the notes and Melvin Adams did not sign them but later took them from the payee by assignment, leaves the inference that the money was advanced as a loan; and Melvin Adams must overcome this inference by testimony clear, cogent, and satisfactory. Phillips v. Phillips, 81 N.J.Eq. 459; Cases on Trust by Scott, pp. 480, 491; Jacksonville Natl. Bank v. Beasley, 159 Ill. 120. (5) The basis of the rule of resulting trusts is that there existed, at the time of the conveyance, some collateral purpose causing the legal title and beneficial interests to be divided; and the absence of any such purpose lends a strong inference against the intention of creating a resulting trust. Perry on Trusts, p. 137, sec. 126. (6) The evidence does not show any resulting trust as to a fractional interest. Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 87; McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray, 119. (7) Instead of showing a resulting trust, the evidence in this case showed that there was either an advancement or a loan by Melvin Adams to persons for whom he had a natural affection, and that he had no intention of keeping the land in him but rather of giving it to his father and mother; and he has not overcome the presumption of gift or settlement by any competent evidence. Thomas v. Thomas, found in Cases on Trust by Scott, p. 462; Perry on Trusts, p. 156, sec. 143; Phillips v. Phillips, 81 N.J.Eq. 459; Lieberstein v. Frey, 92 S.W.2d 114. (8) Prior to the death of Amanda Adams, Melvin Adams is not entitled to recover any of the taxes he paid, because it is not shown that the relationship between him and the other defendants and the plaintiff was such as to suggest the idea that Melvin Adams was paying the taxes at their request, or that the taxes were being paid for their benefit; but on the contrary the evidence showed that Melvin Adams was a mere volunteer, paying the taxes because of a feeling of affection and natural love for his parents. Wall v. Hanford, 142 Mo.App. 395, 127 S.W. 111; Podesta v. Union Land Co., 152 Mo.App. 393, 133 S.W. 109; Calvert v. Hull, 251 S.W. 414; Burkham v. Manewal, 195 Mo. 500, 94 S.W. 520.

OPINION

Ellison, J.

This is a partition suit instituted by respondent in 1937, in which the only appealing defendant, Melvin Adams, filed a separate answer and cross bill claiming title to the real estate involved through a resulting trust; also alternatively asking credit for taxes paid thereon over a period of about twenty-five years. The other adult defendants answered admitting the truth of his cross bill and the minor defendants filed a general denial. The Chancellor found for respondent; rendered an interlocutory decree in partition ordering a sale of the land and a division of the proceeds among the parties according to their interests as found; and dismissed appellant's cross bill except that he was allowed credit in the sum of $ 161.75 for taxes paid on the land.

The real estate is Lots 1 to 10, both inclusive, Block 1, Hardy and Keeley's Addition to the village of Edna (now Fornfelt) in Scott County. The common source of title is Amanda E. Adams, mother of the appellant and the four other defendants first named in the caption. She died intestate in November, 1935. The remaining seven defendants were her grandchildren, all by her son James, who predeceased her. The plaintiff-respondent Ada Adams is the widow of another son, Holly, who died intestate and without issue after the death of his father and mother. All this made the real estate divisible into seven child's shares. Respondent elected under Sec. 329, R. S. 1939, sec. 329, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 216 to take one-half of the share of her deceased husband Holly and thus comes by her one-fourteenth interest asserted here. The remaining fourteenth went to the appellant and the other defendants, Holly's five surviving brothers and sisters and the children of his deceased brother James, under the second clause of Sec. 306, R. S. 1939, sec. 306, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 194.

In brief, appellant asserts he paid the purchase price of the real estate, which was bought in two parcels in 1912 and 1914 and used as a family home; that he improved it and paid the taxes thereon; but the title was taken in the father's name. Later domestic trouble developed between the father and mother and the former deeded the property to the latter with knowledge on her part of the facts. She died holding the record title. Respondent claims the title passed by descent from the mother. Appellant maintains the facts raise a resulting trust with the equitable title in him; but that if his proof on that issue be insufficient he at least is entitled to credit for the taxes he paid on the land from the time it was bought.

Prior to 1909 the Adams family had lived in Illinois. In his late 'teens the appellant came to southeast Missouri and got a job on a railroad. He testified he told his mother "when they lost their home in Illinois if she would come to Missouri, I had a job working on the railroad, and I would maintain a home for her, and I done it." The parents moved to Fornfelt and lived with him in rented houses until, as appellant testified, "we got this place and built a home of our own." Lots 3 to 10, aforesaid, were purchased in June, 1912, the deed being made to the father. Appellant then lacked about four months of being twenty-one years old. He said he paid $ 100 cash on the purchase price. The father and mother gave three notes for the balance, one for $ 150 and two for $ 200, due respectively one, two and three years after date, secured by their deed of trust on six of the lots. Appellant declared he later paid all the notes with interest, and thereby completed the payment of the whole purchase price.

When the notes were paid they were not cancelled, but appellant had them assigned to himself without recourse. The first two were paid practically when due. The third note was assigned to appellant in June, 1914, a year before it was due, but it bears interest credits thereafter for 1915, 1916 and 1917. Lots 1 and 2 were purchased in January, 1914, over a year after appellant had...