Boehm v. Boehm

• Decision Date: 04 November 1943
• Docket Number: 19.
• Citation: Boehm v. Boehm, 182 Md. 254, 34 A.2d 447 (Md. 1943)
• Parties: BOEHM et ux. v. BOEHM et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

34 A.2d 447

182 Md. 254

BOEHM et ux. v. BOEHM et ux.

No. 19.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 4, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; James Clark, Judge.

Suit by William Boehm, Sr., and wife against William Boehm, Jr., and wife, for a declaration that defendants held legal title to realty in trust for plaintiffs, and to require defendants to convey their rights to such realty to plaintiffs, or for appointment of a trustee for that purpose, wherein a cross-bill was filed.From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Hyman Ginsberg, of Baltimore (Ginsberg & Ginsberg, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Emanuel Klawans and Marvin I. Anderson, both of Annapolis, for appellees.

Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURYGRASON, MELVIN, ADAMS, and BAILEY, JJ.

BAILEY Judge.

William Boehm, Sr., and Agnes Boehm, his wife, were the owners, as tenants by the entireties, of an undivided one-half interest in a farm in Anne Arundel County, the other undivided one-half interest in which was owned by their son, William Boehm, Jr., and his wife, Josephine Boehm, as tenants by the entireties.The property was conveyed to them, subject to a mortgage of $3,200, by deed dated October 2, 1920.The total purchase price was $5,400. and the balance of $2,200 was paid by the father and wife and by the son and wife in equal shares.

On December 3, 1942, the father and his wife filed an amended bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against their son and his wife, alleging that in 1925the defendants entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiffs to sell their interest in said farm for the sum of $1,100 in cash and the assumption by the plaintiffs of the whole of the mortgage thereon; that at that time the plaintiffs paid to the defendants $570 on account of said purchase price; that since then the plaintiffs have paid all taxes on said farm and all interest on said mortgage; and that, quoting from said bill of complaint:

'In reliance upon said contract the plaintiffs have given up other employment and have resided upon said farm and have worked and improved the same and have erected thereon entirely at their own expense a dwelling, tobacco barn, double garage, chicken coops, stable, and have purchased about $1,000 of farm machinery of no use to them except in connection with said land, and have raised crops on said farm, and have devoted their entire time and effort to said land and have improved and benefited same in many ways not readily susceptible to being valued in money.From the time of said agreement to sell to the plaintiffs, the defendants have paid no portion of the taxes on said land, or interest on said mortgage, and have not expended any money whatsoever account of said land, and have not raised any crops thereon.About 1933the defendants purchased a separate farm for themselves, and at that time they requested and received payment from the plaintiffs of the balance of said $1,100 purchase money with interest thereon from the time of said oral agreement of sale to this time of payment in full.

'That the defendantJosefine Boehm had full knowledge of the aforesaid agreement to sell the defendants' interest in said farm to the plaintiffs and she acquiesced and consented and agreed thereto and received and accepted the benefits of the purchase money paid by the plaintiffs; and both defendants had full knowledge of the plaintiffs' possession of said farm and of the improvements and expenditures being made by the plaintiffs and the work being done by them and of the belief on the part of the plaintiffs in making said improvements and performing said work that the plaintiffs owned said land to the exclusion of any right of the defendants, and the defendants in no manner apprised the plaintiffs of any claim of rights in said land asserted by the defendants.

'That the defendants never claimed or asserted any rights in said farm from the time of said agreement of sale by them to the plaintiffs until recently, when the defendants prevented the plaintiffs from selling timber on said farm by telling the buyer that they owned an interest therein; and they now assert rights in said farm.That the plaintiffs desire to refinance said mortgage and for this reason desire a conveyance from the defendants to the plaintiffs and the defendants refuse to execute such conveyance.'

The prayers of the bill were that the defendants be declared to hold their legal title to said land in trust for the plaintiffs, that the defendants be required to convey all their rights in said lands to the plaintiffs or that a trustee be appointed for this purpose, and for further relief.

The defendants filed a combined demurrer and answer to the amended bill of complaint.The grounds for the demurrer are: (1) That the bill does not state facts entitling the plaintiffs to the relief prayed for therein or to any relief in equity against the defendants, (2) that the plaintiffs have a full, complete and adequate remedy at law, (3) that they have been guilty of laches, and (4) that the Statute of Frauds is a complete defense to the bill.By their answer they denied all the material averments of the bill and alleged that they were still the owners of an undivided one-half interest in said farm.At the same time, the defendants filed a cross bill against the plaintiffs praying for an accounting for machinery and equipment on the farm and for the profits from said farm.

Testimony was taken before the Chancellor and thereafter, on March 3, 1943, his decree was filed overruling the demurrer to the bill complaint, dismissing the defendants' cross bill for an accounting and subjecting the undivided one-half interest of the defendants in the farm to a lien in favor of the plaintiffs for $1,500.The decree further provided for the sale of the defendants' interest unless the said sum with interest was paid within thirty days, and that the debt and lien might be satisfied and extinguished by a conveyance of the defendants' interest to the plaintiffs within the said period of thirty days.From this decree the defendants have appealed.

The following facts are undisputed: All the parties moved to the farm soon after its purchase and continued to live thereon for about two years.During most of this period the father and son worked in Baltimore, no effort was made to engage in any extensive farming operations, and there was little, if any, income from the farm.The taxes thereon and the interest on the mortgage were paid by the plaintiffs and defendants in equal shares.After the expiration of two years the defendants returned to Baltimore.The father and mother continued to live on the farm for a while, but in 1923the father went back to Baltimore, worked there and boarded with a daughter.The mother remained on the farm for a further period but she finally returned to Baltimore and for several years the farm was vacant.The defendants ceased paying their share of the taxes and interest after they left the farm in 1922, and in October, 1924, they purchased a home on Loretta Avenue in Baltimore.The father was a carpenter and the son a machinist.In 1927 and 1928the father and son drove from Baltimore to the farm on Sundays and holidays and built a tobacco barn, chicken house and garage thereon.Most, if not all, of the necessary lumber was sawed from trees cut on the farm, but the sawing was paid for by the father, as were the galvanized roofing and other necessary materials.In 1929the father moved back to the farm, paid all the expenses in connection with a crop of tobacco and received the proceeds from the sale thereof.In 1930 the dwelling house was destroyed by fire and the sum of $2,000, collected from the insurance, was paid to the mortgagee, thereby reducing the mortgage to $1,200.Shortly after the fire the father and son agreed to work the farm on shares, each to receive one-half, and the son and his wife rented their Loretta Avenue home and moved, with their children, to the farm.The two families lived together in the outbuildings and the father and son proceeded to grow tobacco and other crops and to rebuild the dwelling.A part of the lumber used in rebuilding was sawed from trees cut on the farm, a part of the proceeds of the tobacco crop and money of the father was used in purchasing materials for the new house and, in addition, $1,200 was raised for this purpose by increasing the mortgage from $1,200 to $2,400.The new mortgage was executed by all the parties.The joint operation of the farm was discontinued in 1933, when it was suggested by the mother that the farm was not large enough to support two families and that the son's family should return to Baltimore so that he could resume his work as a machinist.The defendants then left the farm, but instead of going to Baltimore, they purchased and moved to another farm near the farm in controversy.The purchase price of this farm was $1,500, of which $400 was paid in cash and the balance secured by mortgage.The title to this property, as well as to the dwelling on Loretta Avenue in Baltimore, was taken by the defendants as tenants by the entireties.

Thereafter the defendants never participated in the operation of, or shared in the profits from, or paid any of the expenses on or asserted any acts of ownership over, the farm first purchased where the father and mother continued to live, until the summer of 1942, when the plaintiffs sold some timber, and then the two sons of the defendants went on the farm and notified the purchaser of this timber that their parents, the defendants, owned a one-half interest in said farm and would not permit the removal of said timber.Shortly thereafter, on October 14, 1942, this suit...