Creutz v. Heil

• Decision Date: 14 January 1890
• Citation: 89 Ky. 429,12 S.W. 926
• Parties: CREUTZ v. HEIL et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

12 S.W. 926

89 Ky. 429

CREUTZ v. HEIL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 14, 1890

Appeal from chancery court, Campbell county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by William A. Heil and others against H. Z. Creutz, to set aside a compromise agreement. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

G. H Ahlering and Geo. Washington, for appellant.

Crawford & Irwin, for appellees.

BENNETT J.

Mrs Creutz, wife of the appellant, was the widow of Valentine Heil, deceased, who died in 1866, leaving the widow aforesaid, and the appellees, as children by himself and said widow. Said Heil left a will, by which his widow was empowered to dispose of certain personal property, and invest so much of the proceeds as she might deem necessary in a house and lot, the title to be vested in her for and during her widowhood, remainder in fee to the appellees in equal portions; and, in the event of her marriage, to be divided in the proportion of one-third to her for life, and remainder to the appellees in equal proportions. The widow did not follow the directions of the will in making said investment; but on the 20th day of June, 1867, she bought the house and lot in controversy with said proceeds, and had the absolute title conveyed to herself. Not long thereafter the appellant married said widow. They lived together, as husband and wife until her death, which occurred in 1883. All of this time the title to said house and lot was in Mrs. Heil, and she and the appellant, together with the children, lived in it. During said time the taxes on said property were paid, and it was improved. Within a year and a half after the appellees, the children by the first husband, came of age, they set up a formal claim to this property. The appellant, being in possession of it, refused to surrender the possession. The appellees thereupon consulted a lawyer, who advised them that the appellant had no interest in said property, nor any right to compensation for any taxes that he might have paid on the property, nor compensation for any improvements that he might have put thereon. Notwithstanding this advice, the appellant and appellees, as is alleged, compromised their differences relative to said property rights, by the appellees executing to the appellant a mortgage on said house and lot for the sum of $800, payable, without interest, when the appellees should sell said property, and the appellant to remain in the possession of the property, rent free, until said sum should be paid. About three years after said compromise the appellees sought, by this suit, to set it aside. We think that it clearly appears from the evidence that the widow of Valentine Heil purchased said property with he proceeds of the personal property with which he authorized her to buy a house and lot; indeed, there is no dispute as to this fact. We also think that it clearly appears that the appellant knew, in the life-time of his wife, that she only claimed a life-estate in said property; for she told him that, at her death, the children would turn him out, and he could not hold the property as a home. Hence he had her to make a will giving him a life-estate in the property. But after her death he abandoned the idea of trying to hold under the will because his wife had no estate to will. ...