Bradley v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 23 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 17740,17740 |
| Citation | 540 S.W.2d 504 |
| Parties | Norma Jean BRADLEY, Appellant, v. George BRADLEY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Patrick A. Myers, Jacksboro, for appellant.
Stark & Barnhart, Inc., and Richard S. Stark, Gainesville, for appellees.
This suit was originally instituted by Norma Jean Bradley against her former husband, George Bradley, and the Veterans' Land Board, seeking a judgment decreeing her to be the owner of a 1/2 interest in the 169 acre Cooke County farm that is here involved. She also sought a judgment partitioning the farm among its joint owners. The suit was filed on September 13, 1972. In October, 1972, H. E. Bradley and wife, Rowena, the mother and father of George Bradley, intervened alleging that they had made all payments of the purchase price for the farm and that they were the owners of it. H. E. Bradley died on March 31, 1974, and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff being Norma Jean Bradley and the two defendants being George Bradley and his mother, Rowena Bradley.
A jury trial was had and the trial court granted the defendants' motion to disregard the jury's answers to certain issues and also granted defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and rendered judgment decreeing that the plaintiff, Norma Jean Bradley, take nothing by her suit and that the defendants, Rowena Bradley and George Bradley, each be decreed to be the owners of a 1/2 undivided interest in the farm.
This appeal is brought by the plaintiff, Norma Jean Bradley, from that decree.
We reverse and render judgment decreeing that the plaintiff, Norma Jean Bradley, is the owner of a 1/2 interest in the remainder of the 169 acre Cooke County farm that is involved in this suit; that George Bradley is the owner of the other 1/2 interest in the remainder of said farm; and that Rowena Bradley owns a life estate for the balance of her lifetime in the entire 169 acre farm.
It was undisputed that in the year 1953 George Bradley, a 29 year old resident of Texas, a Veteran, while married to plaintiff, then age 20, entered into a contract of sale and purchase with the Texas Veterans' Land Board for the purchase of 169 acres of land in Cooke County, Texas. Four hundred ($400.00) dollars of the five thousand ($5,000.00) dollar sale price was paid down in cash. By the aforementioned contract George Bradley obligated himself to pay to the Land Board an additional sum of four thousand six hundred ($4,600.00) dollars over a period of forty years with interest thereon at the rate of 3% Per annum.
During the trial the plaintiff and the two defendants testified. Their testimony was substantially the same to the effect that: H. E. Bradley had had a nervous breakdown; he and his wife, Rowena, desired to move on to a farm and live there; they were not able to finance the ordinary purchase of a farm; their son, George Bradley, because of being a U.S. Army war veteran from Texas was eligible for a loan from the Texas Veterans' Land Board with which to finance a farm under Art. 5421m, V.A.T.S.; George Bradley was a young preacher and was himself not able to finance the purchase of a farm or to make payments on one; H. E. Bradley and Rowena Bradley orally agreed with George Bradley and his wife, Norma Jean Bradley, prior to the purchase of the farm in question, that George Bradley would use his eligibility for a loan from the Veteran' Land Board for the purpose of financing the purchase of the farm and would give the parents the full use, occupancy and possession of the farm during their lifetimes plus the right to all of the income from the farm during their lifetimes, and in return therefor the parents agreed that they would make the down payment on the purchase of the farm and that they would make the installment payments that later fell due on the contract of purchase, would pay the taxes on the farm and would pay for such improvements as they desired to make on the farm during the time they had possession of it. They agreed that after the parents both died, George Bradley was to get possession of the farm. Norma Jean Bradley knew of and approved the agreement.
Pursuant to the agreement George Bradley did use his eligibility for a loan under Art. 5421m, V.A.T.S., to finance the purchase of the farm involved and H. E. and Rowena Bradley made the down payment of $400.00 on the farm and immediately after the closing they went into possession of the premises. They have since possessed and occupied the property, made all payments to the Land Board (paying the entire loan off), rendered and paid all ad valorem taxes and paid all insurance premiums, and have made and paid for valuable improvements on the farm. Under the agreement of the parties the parents could make all the improvements they desired to make on the property as long as they paid for them. The contract with the Veterans' Land Board for the purchase of the farm has at all times been in the name of George Bradley.
On the 31st day of March, 1967, plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment of divorce from George Bradley in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Humbolt County. Norma Jean Bradley was awarded custody of their six minor children. The personal property of the parties was divided, but no formal agreement nor disposition was made by the parties or by the court concerning the 169 acre farm. After the divorce George Bradley's parents continued to occupy and possess the farm property and continued to make all payments thereon. The divorce became final on April 1, 1968.
George Bradley and Norma Jean Bradley, after the divorce, discussed the farm. Norma Jean was unable to get George to put any part of the farm into her name, so in 1972 she obtained a lawyer and file this suit. There was then nothing of record to show her to be owner of an interest in the land.
Plaintiff instituted this suit in September, 1972, against George Bradley and the Veterans' Land Board. In October, 1972, the Bradleys (the parents) intervened in the suit claiming under a resulting trust. Shortly thereafter H. E. and Rowena Bradley paid the balance of the Land Board debt and the Land Board conveyed the record title of the farm to George Bradley, subject to this suit which was then pending. Immediately thereafter George Bradley deeded the record title to his parents. At about the same time H. E. Bradley executed a will devising all of his interest in the property to George Bradley, one of his six children. H. E. Bradley died on the 31st day of March, 1974, and his will was duly admitted to probate without contest. The Veterans' Land Board was dropped from the case and so was H. E. Bradley after he died. By trial time Norma Jean Bradley was plaintiff and George and Rowena Bradley (his mother) were the only defendants.
Jury findings were as hereafter set out.
Issues Nos. 1, 1(a) through 1(h): H. E. and Rowena Bradley and George Bradley agreed that since H. E. and Rowena Bradley did not have the cash resources to finance the purchase of a farm that George Bradley would finance the purchase of the 169 acre farm involved by using his eligibility to make such a purchase under the Veterans' Land Board Act (Art. 5421m, V.A.C.S.).
Issues Nos. 1, 1(a) through 1(h): The parties agreed to acquire the farm for use as a retirement home for H. E. and Rowena Bradley throughout the balance of their lifetimes and that after their deaths George Bradley would have the farm as his retirement home. A part of the agreement was that H. E. and Rowena Bradley would make the down payment and all subsequent installment payments to the Veterans' Land Board on the purchase of the farm. The parties further agreed that all income derived from the farm during their lifetimes would belong to H. E. and Rowena Bradley. George Bradley was not in a financial position to make any of the farm payments himself.
Issue No. 2 and its subdivisions: Prior to the time the farm was actually purchased in October, 1953, the plaintiff, Norma Jean Bradley, who was then the wife of George Bradley, had knowledge of and concurred in the entire agreement.
Issue No. 11: The down payment on the farm made to the Veterans' Land Board by H. E. and Rowena Bradley was not intended by them to be a gift to their son, George Bradley, or to Norma Jean Bradley.
Issue No. 12: The installment payments made by H. E. and Rowena Bradley to the Veterans' Land Board were not intended by them to be gifts to George Bradley.
Issues Nos. 14, 15, 16, 16A: H. E. and Rowena Bradley relied on the agreement between the parties and with George Bradley. They also relied on Norma Jean Bradley's concurrence in the agreement and by virtue of such reliance they made the payments on the farm, paid the taxes thereon and made improvements on the farm.
Issues Nos. 17, 18: Norma Jean Bradley did not waive her right to an interest in the farm by failing to assert her claim to it in the divorce case. She did not waive her claim to an interest in the farm by failing to pay her proportionate part of the payments due the Veterans' Land Board that fell due after the divorce decree.
Issue No. 19: Norma Jean Bradley did not delay for an unreasonable length of time in asserting a claim to the property.
Issue No. 22: Norma Jean Bradley would not be unjustly enriched by recovering a 1/2 interest in the farm under the facts of this case.
Issue No. 23: H. E. and Rowena Bradley held continuous and peaceable adverse possession of the farm for more than 10 years before the suit was filed.
Issue No. 24: The farm was not fully enclosed by H. E. and Rowena Bradley.
Issue No. 25: H. E. and Rowena Bradley constructed improvements on the farm from its purchase to now.
Issues Nos. 26, 27: The improvements have enhanced the value of the farm by $9,000.00.
Issue No. 28: George Bradley did not give his interest in the farm back to H. E. and Rowena...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaughan v. Commissioner
...where property is acquired on credit even if the community debt is subsequently paid with separate assets. Bradley v. Bradley, 540 S.W.2d 504, 512 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976). However, the presumption is rebutted if the lender expects to be repaid from the separate property of one spouse rather t......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...of property to another made gratuitously and without consideration. Hilley v. Hilley, 342 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex. 1961); Bradley v. Bradley, 540 S.W.2d 504, 511 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1976, no writ). Three elements are required to establish the existence of a gift: (1) intent to make a gif......
-
Siewert v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...where property is acquired on credit even if the community debt is subsequently paid with separate assets. Bradley v. Bradley, 540 S.W.2d 504, 512 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976). Here, however, the presumption is not applicable. The $100,000 was borrowed from the bank on petitioner's credit, not on ......
-
Contreras v. Contreras
...fact that the community debt is later paid with separate funds. Gleich v. Bongio, 128 Tex. 606, 99 S.W.2d 881, 883 (1937); Bradley v. Bradley, 540 S.W.2d 504, 512 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1976, no writ). Thus, the presumption is that at the dissolution of marriage, all property on hand is c......