Bayless v. Mayfield

• Decision Date: 20 February 1961
• Docket Number: No. 153,153
• Parties: William Hanna BAYLESS, II, v. T. Hunt MAYFIELD, Subs. Trustee, etc., et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 359

224 Md. 359

167 A.2d 889

William Hanna BAYLESS, II, v. T. Hunt MAYFIELD, Subs. Trustee, etc., et al.

No. 153.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 20, 1961.

John D. Alexander, Baltimore (E. Thomas W. Stahl an Constable, Alexander & Daneker, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles E. Hogg and Daniel M. Murray, Jr., Ellicott City (T. Hunt Mayfield, Ellicott City, on the brief), for appellees.

Before, HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, and SYBERT, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

In this appeal, we are asked to reverse an order of the Circuit Court for Howard County, sustaining demurrers to the appellant's petition for the construction of the will of Corinne Clark Bayless, deceased. It will be unnecessary to set forth the terms of the will and the facts in full detail as they may be found in Ledingham v. Bayless, 218 Md. 108, 145 A.2d 434.

Briefly summarized, they are as follows: Mrs. Bayless died testate in December of 1954. She devised Fairfield Farm to a trustee for the benefit of her three children: George E. S. Bayless, Jr., (Buddy), a one-half interest for life, William Hanna Bayless II, the appellant, one-fourth interest for life, and Corinne B. Ledingham, a one-fourth interest for life, with provisions with reference to the distribution of income upon the respective deaths of the children, and final distribution provisions to the children of Buddy and William (Corinne having no children). The will was admitted to probate on January 4, 1955.

Buddy, who is one of the appellees in this appeal, filed suit alleging that he was entitled to an undivided one-half absolute estate in the farm by reason of a contract to devise this interest to him. His amended bill requested a declaration stating that he was entitled to such an interest, that the contract be specifically enforced, and that a decree be passed for a partition of the farm. His sister and brother, their respective spouses, his own wife, and his brother's and his own children were made parties.

On June 4, 1957, the Circuit Court passed a decree enforcing the contract and appointing a trustee to sell in lieu of partition. Whereupon, the appellant herein, his wife, his sister and the Guardian ad Litem for his infant children appealed to this Court. We held that the contract to devise should be enforced, that is, that Buddy took a one-half absolute interest in the farm (instead of a life estate), and the farm should be sold in lieu of partition. In the opinion filed, the Court referred to the will of Mrs. Bayless, and remarked concerning the remaining one-half interest in the farm, 'Under the decision we have reached, * * * his [Buddy's] brother and sister retain their interest in the half share.'

Shortly after the opinion was filed, counsel, who represented all of the appellants in that appeal, filed a motion in this Court for amplification of the opinion. Among other things, it averred:

'In order that as many of the further problems involved in this case may be, with all of the parties in interest as parties to this proceeding, put behind us as is possible, the appellants respectfully suggest that the statement 'his brother and sister retain their interests in the other half share' be amplified, in view of the fact that under the will distribution of income during their lifetime is an interest vested in them and in further view of the fact that the ultimate distribution of corpus to William Hanna Bayless' children or descendants * * * will be affected by the decision.' (Italics supplied.)

This motion for amplification was granted, and the final opinion of the Court stated:

'Under the decision we have reached, Buddy will take a one-half share of the farm outright, rather than for life. The share he takes was not bequeathed to anyone else. He was merely given a lesser interest in that share than called for by the contract, which was the situation in the Wilson case [Wilson v. Safe Deposite & Trust Co., 183 Md. 245, 37 A.2d 321, 152 A.L.R. 892]. His brother and sister retain their equitable life interests in the other half share; and Buddy has no interest in that half, although his children take a two-thirds interest therein, according to and on the terms of the Will of their grandmother. We think that the one-third share of the personalty and the rest and residue, which his mother gave him in the 1954 will, were not intended to be in lieu of any rights that he had or that she intended to give him in the farm.'

The opinion was amplified on November 19, 1958, and from that date until March 18, 1960, nothing further was done in the case, other than the appointment of a trustee to sell the farm. On March 18, 1960, the present appellant, who was one of the appellants in the previous case, filed his bill of complaint asking that Mrs. Bayless' will be construed. Demurrers to this bill were sustained, and this appeal resulted.

In his brief, the appellant apparently contends that this Court had no jurisdiction nor right to entertain nor to grant his motion for amplification; that the lower court in the former appeal did not...