Baumgartner v. Seidel

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: O'CONNELL, Justice.
• Citation: Baumgartner v. Seidel, 65 A.2d 697 (R.I. 1949)
• Decision Date: 11 April 1949
• Docket Number: Eq. No. 1904.
• Parties: BAUMGARTNER v. SEIDEL et al.

65 A.2d 697

BAUMGARTNER

v.SEIDEL et al.

Eq. No. 1904.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 11, 1949.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Philip C. Joslin, Judge.

Suit by Herman Baumgartner against Bertha H. Seidel and others for enforcement of an oral agreement to devise certain parcel of real estate to complainant and for incidental relief. From a decree for complainant, the defendants appeal.

Decree affirmed and cause remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Arcaro, Carty & Belilove and Joseph B. Carty, all of Providence, for complainant.

Edward J. McCaughey, of Pawtucket, for respondents.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

This cause is before us on respondents' appeal from a final decree of the superior court granting the complainant's prayer for enforcement of an oral agreement to devise a certain parcel of real estate located in the city of Pawtucket, and for incidental relief. The respondents are the brother and sister of the complainant, their respective spouses, and Lawrence A. McCarthy, who is administrator c. t. a. of the estate of complainant's deceased father, Gustav Baumgartner.

The bill alleges that in February 1931, following the death of his wife, Gustav Baumgartner promised and agreed that if the complainant would continue to live in the family homestead, pay him $4 per week and take care of and support him, he would convey or devise said premises to the complainant; that the latter accepted said promise and agreement; that he and his wife cared for, supported and nursed Gustav Baumgartner from thence until his death and paid him $4 each week during that period; that he also expended large sums of money in the upkeep, reparation and improvement of the homestead property and has in every respect performed his part of the agreement; and that Gustav Baumgartner died in Pawtucket on May 23, 1945 at the age of ninety-three years without having conveyed or devised the premises to complainant in accordance with his agreement.

The bill further alleges that on August 22, 1945 the probate court of Pawtucket admitted to probate an instrument in writing dated June 14, 1922, which purported to be the last will and testament of Gustav Baumgartner, devising and bequeathing to his wife Mary Baumgartner, who deceased intestate in February 1931, the family homestead involved herein; that Mary Baumgartner was the mother of the complainant and the respondents Bertha H. Seidel and Gustave Gardiner; and that the respondent Lawrence A. McCarthy was appointed administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Gustav Baumgartner, has qualified and is acting in such capacity.

The bill also alleges that the respondents Seidel and Gardiner claim to hold the real estate described in the bill of complaint free and clear of any right, title or interest on the part of the complainant, save his right as one of the heirs at law of his father, and have refused to convey their interest in said real estate to the complainant. Complainant prays that he be decreed to be entitled to the real estate as owner in fee simple, and that the respondents Seidel and Gardiner be directed to convey their respective interests therein to him. In effect the bill seeks to have said respondents declared to be trustees of the homestead estate for the benefit of complainant.

The complainant presented evidence to the effect that he had lived with his parents until his marriage in 1917; that thereafter he continued to live there with his wife until his mother's death in 1931, paying board at $8 per week; that he and his wife were childless; and that upon his mother's death he advised his father that he was going to find a home elsewhere, but his father requested and induced him to remain upon the promise to devise to him the homestead property, a two-story cottage of six rooms, upon fulfillment of the conditions hereinbefore mentioned.

Complainant testified that pursuant to this agreement he paid his father $4 a week until his death, and that he and his wife cared for him during all the intervening years, his wife providing his meals without cost, taking care of his laundry, pressing his clothes, helping him to dress and undress, and generally assisting him in any way necessary because...