Cortez Land & Securities Co. v. Stabler

• Decision Date: 21 May 1928
• Docket Number: 11918.
• Citation: 84 Colo. 64,268 P. 526
• Parties: CORTEZ LAND & SECURITIES CO. v. STABLER et ux.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

268 P. 526

84 Colo. 64

CORTEZ LAND & SECURITIES CO. v. STABLER et ux.

No. 11918.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 21, 1928

Department 2.

Error to District Court, Montezuma County; W. N. Searcy, Judge.

Action by the Cortez Land & Securities Company against George A Stabler and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

John J Downey, of Cortez, for plaintiff in error.

Benj. B. Russell, of Durango, for defendants in error.

BUTLER, J.

The Cortez Land & Securities Company sued George A. Stabler and Minnie E. Stabler, husband and wife, to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance from the wife to the husband, in order to subject the deeded land to the payment of the company's judgment against the wife.

In rendering its decision in favor of the defendants, the court said, among other things:

'I will say that seldom does a case come before the court so frankly, freely and completely explained as is this case. There is no circumstance in the case to conflict with or cast doubt upon the statements of the defendants. There is nothing to raise a question as to what the transaction was. The court finds and is bound to find that the statements of the defendants are true. Every dollar of the purchase price of the so-called Cortez ranch was paid by Mr. Stabler and his brother. Then Mr. Stabler paid the purchase price for the one-half belonging to the brother. Then Mr. Stabler paid every cent of taxes and upkeep. During this history of the property it was treated as firm property belonging to the partnership of the brothers. * * * In my opinion, there was no intent to defraud, and nothing to indicate such an intent.'

The evidence fully supports the findings on this issue.

Where one purchases and pays for real property, causing title to be conveyed to another without consideration, a trust results in favor of him who paid for the property. Where, however, the grantee is his wife, there is a presumption that he intended it as a gift or an advancement; and in that case, one seeking to establish a resulting trust must show, by strong and convincing evidence, that he did not intend it as a gift or an advancement.

Doll v Gifford, 13 Colo.App. 67, 56 P. 676; Rowe v. Johnson, 33 Colo. 469, 81 P. 268; Foster v. Berrier, 39 Colo. 398, 89 P 787. Counsel for the Cortez Company contends that this case is governed by Foster v. Barrier, 39 Colo. 398, 89 P. 787. But in that case the...