Cram v. Cram

• Decision Date: 02 March 1928
• Parties: CRAM v. CRAM et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

262 Mass. 509

160 N.E. 337

CRAM

v.CRAM et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 2, 1928.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Bishop, Judge.

Suit in equity by D. Henry Cram against Alice E. Cram and others to reach property standing in name of named defendant, and in possession of other defendants belonging to plaintiff. From a decree sustaining a demurrer of the named defendant to the bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.J. F. Ryan, of Boston, for appellant.

H. W. Sullivan, of Boston, and T. N. Foynes, of Brighton, for appellees.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit in equity by a husband against his wife to reach property standing in her name and in the possession in whole or in part of other defendant and alleged to belong to the plaintiff. It is averred that, prior to January 25, 1922, the plaintiff placed most of his profits in the hands of his wife to be saved for the enjoyment jointly of himself and his wife, and that she has appropriated the same to her own use to the exclusion of the plaintiff. It is further averred that, having sold his business in 1922 for a large sum, his wife induced him to give into her custody approximately $92,000 in cash and mortgages, being substantially all his worldly goods, ‘by means of false and fraudulent representations of the defendant Alice E. Cram that the defendant Alice E. Cram was satisfied with her condition, and would continue to reside with him and care for him as long as both should live; that the defendant Alice E. Cram was better able to assume the burden of investing and caring for the said property; that the property would be removed from possible attachment either on pending or future claims against the plaintiff; that the property would be at all times subject to the control of the plaintiff; * * * all of said representations made by the defendant Alice E. Cram were known by her to be false.’ Further allegations were added by amendment to the effect that, at the time of such transfer, the plaintiff ‘was solvent, that he owed practically nothing, having paid all his just debts or reserved from the property received from the sale of his business a sufficient sum to pay all his remaining debts and with said sum did pay all his remaining debts, that neither at the time of said transfer or at any other time was there any intention on the part of the plaintiff to avoid payment of any just debt or obligation, but the purpose on the suggestion of the defendant Cram was that he merely protect himself from the embarrassment that might result from his funds being tied up by unfounded claims or groundless suits and it was not his desire or intention to prevent this property from being applied to the payment of any just debts or claims. * * * that there never was any intention that the defendant Cram should take a beneficial interest in the property, but it was fully understood by both that the property should be held by the defendant Cram in trust for the plaintiff.’ The demurrer of the defendant Cram was sustained, and the plaintiff's appeal from a final decree dismissing the bill brings the case here. The allegations of the bill are admitted to be true by the demurrer for the purpose of this decision.

The turning over of money by the husband to the wife to be used, so far as necessary, for household expenses and the surplus to be saved for the joint benefit and enjoyment of both, does not constitute a gift but joint possession or a trust for their joint benefit. Moore v. Mansfield, 248 Mass. 210, 215, 142 N. E. 792. If the allegation to that effect be proved and it be further shown that the trustee has repudiated the terms of the trust and appropriated the property to her own exclusive use, suit for an accounting and further adequate relief may be maintained. One joint tenant of personal property may maintain trover against another where the latter has utterly deprived him of the benefit of the property. Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546, 97 Am. Dec. 52;Johnson v. Nourse, 258 Mass. 417, 419, 155 N. E. 457. The cestui que trust has an undoubted right to bring suit for the establishment of the trust and for complete relief in equity against a trustee who has disavowed the trust. Repudiation of an express or implied trust by a trustee requires the beneficiary to assert his equitable right to prevent its being barred by the statute of limitations. Young v. Walker, 224 Mass. 491, 493, 113 N. E. 363;Bremer v. Williams, 210 Mass. 256, 96 N. E. 687.

The allegations of the bill are not equivalent to a purpose on the part of the plaintiff to defraud present or future creditors by transferring the property to his wife. When such a purpose is shown, the conduct of the party making the conveyance is so tainted with illegality as to bar relief, no matter how faithless may be the party receiving the property. Pollock v. Pollock, 223 Mass. 382, 385, 111 N. E. 963;Dunne v. Cunningham, 234...