Case's Estate, In re, 33573

• Decision Date: 07 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 33573,33573
• Citation: 118 N.E.2d 836,161 Ohio St. 288
• Parties: , 53 O.O. 172 In re CASE'S ESTATE. BUTLER v. CASE et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 288

161 Ohio St. 288

118 N.E.2d 836, 53 O.O. 172

In re CASE'S ESTATE BUTLER v. CASE et al.

No. 33573.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 7, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The provisions of Section 6290-4, General Code (Section 4505.04, Revised Code), abrogate the common law of resulting trusts in Ohio with respect to motor vehicles.

2. Section 6290-4, General Code (Section 4505.04, Revised Code), makes evidence inadmissible to dispute the title of one to whom a motor vehicle certificate of title is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Ohio Certificate of Title Act except evidence to establish fraud which would cause such certificate of title to be voidable.

3. By reason of the provisions of Section 6290-4, General Code (Section 4505.04, Revised Code), a resulting trust with respect to a motor vehicle can not be created in Ohio.

4. Where one purchases an automobile and pays for it, pays for the license, the insurance and the repairs, and retains possession of the certificate of title and the keys, keeps the automobile in his garage and makes general use of the automobile but has the certificate of title and the insurance issued in the name of his daughter and allows the daughter some use of the automobile, and there is no claim that the certificate of title is voidable by reason of fraud in connection with its issuance, then upon his death the daughter must be considered the owner of the automobile with full right of possession thereof. Under such circumstances there is no title in the decedent of his estate upon the theory of resulting trust.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin county.

The question here involved arises in the settlement of an estate and concerns the ownership of two automobiles purchased by the decedent but for which certificates of title were issued to decedent's daughter.

Earl A. Case died instestate April 26, 1952, leaving a surviving spouse and children by a former marriage, including a daughter, Barbara R. Butler. The administrator, Rodger Case, is a son of the decedent. The inventory included two Cadillac automobiles--a 1941 four-door sedan and a 1949 convertible coupe. At the time of purchase of the automobiles, the certificates of title were taken in the name of the daughter, Barbara R. Butler, and the title remained in that daughter. The decedent paid for the automobiles, for the insurance thereon, and for the licenses. He paid all bills for repairs and generally retained possession of the two automobiles. The insurance and the licenses were procured in the name of the daughter, Barbara R. Butler. The decedent retained possession of the certificates of title and the automobile keys and stored the cars in his own garage but permitted the daughter to use the cars upon some occasions.

On previous occasions when purchasing automobiles, the decedent had caused the title certificates to be issued to others and particularly to anyone to whom he was indebted by reason of the purchase. To pay for one of the automobiles in question, the sum of $2,100 was borrowed from a bank. The note to the bank was signed by both the decedent and the daughter and the automobile was pledged as security. Whether this note was discharged prior to decedent's death is not disclosed.

It was stated by both the daughter and her husband that, at about the time of the purchase of the second Cadillac, the decedent said to the daughter that the cars were in her name so that when and if he died she would get them free and clear of taxes.

The daughter filed exceptions to the inventory, claiming to be the owner of the automobiles. Those exceptions were overruled by the Probate Court.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals that court reversed the judgment of the Probate Court and ordered that the exceptions of the daughter be sustained.

The cause is in this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

John C. Fontana and A. Glenn McClelland, Columbus, for appellants.

Thomas W. Connor, Columbus, for appellee.

MIDDLETON, Judge.

The Probate Court found that the evidence did not establish a gift of the automobiles from decedent to the daughter either causa mortis or inter vivos. That finding was based largely upon the fact that the decedent did not completely surrender dominion and control over the automobiles. The Probate Court then concluded and held that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6290-4, General Code, Section 4505.04, Revised Code, the equitable title was vested in decedent upon the theory of resulting trust.

The Court of Appeals in its opinion found that the issuance of certificates of title to the daughter raised a presumption of gift which was not overcome by the evidence. That court further found that, even if the resulting trust theory could be applied, the administrator had not made the requisite proof to establish a resulting trust.

This court finds no way to answer the question here posed except by construing and applying Section 6290-4, General Code, Section 4505.04, Revised Code, which provides:

'No person acquiring a motor vehicle from the owner thereof, whether such owner be a manufacturer, importer, dealer or otherwise, hereafter shall acquire any right, title, claim, or interest in or to said motor vehicle until he shall have had issued to him a certificate of title to said...