Barrett v. Heiner

• Decision Date: 21 May 1951
• Citation: 80 A.2d 729,367 Pa. 510
• Parties: BARRETT v. HEINER et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

80 A.2d 729

367 Pa. 510

BARRETT v. HEINER et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 21, 1951

Patrick L. Barrett sued Alyce Heiner and husband for reconveyance to plaintiff of realty conveyed by him to defendants and payment to him of reasonable compensation for rent of such property. From a final decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County at No. 13, September Term 1948, in equity, Eagen, J., dismissing the bill of complaint plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, at No. 57, January Term, 1951, Bell, J., held that the evidence supported the chancellor's fact findings and conclusions of law that defendants paid a fair price for the property, that no confidential relation existed between the parties, that plaintiff conveyed the property to defendants voluntarily while mentally competent, and that there was no express constructive or resulting trust in plaintiff's favor.

Decree affirmed.

Will Leach and Leach & Lenahan, all of Scranton, for appellant.

James W. Scanlon, David J. Conroy, Scranton, for appellant.

Before STERN, STEARNE, JONES, BELL, LADNER and CHIDSEY, JJ.

BELL Justice.

Plaintiff filed a bill in equity against his niece, Alyce Heiner, and her husband praying that they reconvey to him the property, 1406 Prospect Avenue, Scranton, Pa., which he had shortly prior thereto conveyed to them and that they pay him reasonable compensation for rent of said property.

The court found that no confidential relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant; that the conveyance of the property was not induced by defendants but was the free, voluntary and clearly understood act of the plaintiff; and that the defendant paid a fair price for the property. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff has taken this appeal.

1406 Prospect Avenue was purchased by plaintiff's brother, Thomas Barrett, for $2500 in 1930 . Shortly thereafter defendants and their two sons moved into the property under an agreement to provide a home for Thomas Barrett. Defendants paid no rent, except for six months in 1940 when Thomas Barrett left the property as a result of an altercation.

Plaintiff was a civil service employee of the Federal Government and in the later years of his service was stationed in Cuba. During and prior to that time he sent money to defendant, Alyce Heiner, to keep for him. These remittances totaled $3937. On September 10, 1945, plaintiff bought the Prospect Avenue property from his brother for $2500 . The purchase price was, at plaintiff's direction and on his behalf, paid by Alyce out of the $3937 he had sent her. The balance of approximately $1400 was paid to plaintiff by Alyce in April 1947. Plaintiff had demanded, received and kept an exact account of the amounts due him over the years from Alyce for money which plaintiff sent her, less the cost of medicine and other necessities which Alyce purchased for plaintiff. Plaintiff became ill and returned to his home in October 1946; and from that time until February 1948, Alyce took care of him (except for one month when he was a patient in Jefferson Hospital, in Philadelphia).

For several years prior to February 1948, plaintiff repeatedly told Alyce and others that he was holding the property, 1406 Prospect Avenue, for her, and that any repairs or improvements she and her husband might make would be for their own benefit; that he wanted no rent for the property, but wished them to pay the taxes, which they did. In the first part of February 1948 plaintiff, unaccompanied, went to the offices of an attorney, Mr. Leo Rafferty, for the purpose of having him draw a will, devising the property to Alyce . Several days later he returned to Rafferty's office and told him he would like to get a loan on the property to pay anticipated hospital bills, but he didn't want the Heiners to know anything about it. Rafferty, on plaintiff's behalf, filed an application for a loan with the Scranton Building & Loan Association. On February 12, 1948, Rafferty advised plaintiff it was doubtful whether the Building & Loan Association would grant him a loan while he was in the hospital. Plaintiff then said that he might as well turn the property over to the Heiners and let them get the loan and pay the money to him, since the property would be the Heiner's in any event. Rafferty, in accordance with plaintiff's instructions, drew a deed for the property to the defendants and next day, i. e. February 13, 1948, accompanied by his secretary, Mary McNamara, a notary public, brought the deed to plaintiff who was still in the hospital. Plaintiff read, signed and acknowledged the deed before his attorney and the notary public and the notary public signed and placed her seal thereon. Plaintiff's doctor testified that at that time plaintiff was mentally competent and in full possession of his faculties . Defendants first learned of the (deed or) transfer of this property to them when Mr. Rafferty phoned Mrs. Heiner and told her the deed had been executed and advised her of the plan to mortgage the property in order to secure money to pay the bills incurred or likely to be incurred by plaintiff.

On February 23, 1948, the defendants met Rafferty at the Building & Loan Association and received a check for a mortgage loan of $2000 (secured on said property) which check they endorsed and delivered to plaintiff who in turn endorsed it and deposited it in his account. On or about March 1, plaintiff first demanded that the defendants reconvey the property to him. Plaintiff never...