Dean v. Jelsma
| Decision Date | 25 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37466,37466 |
| Citation | 1957 OK 163,316 P.2d 599 |
| Parties | Mary DEAN, Joseph Dean, Thomas Dean, Patricia Catron, nee Dean, John Dean, and Mary Dean, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Charles Dean, deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Marie Katherine JELSMA, nee Dean, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The competency of a party to testify under 12 O.S.1951 § 384, is waived by the adversary taking such party's deposition and requiring him to testify concerning transactions with the deceased person from whom he acquired his cause of action.
2. In a case of equitable cognizance, to declare a constructive trust on property in the hands of an executrix, it is not error to refuse a demand for a jury trial, even though the decision of the case may have the incidental and ultimate result of deciding ownership of real property.
3. Where all the facts alleged in defendants' answers could be proved under a general denial and amount to a traverse of plaintiff's allegations in her petition, a reply is not necessary.
4. An antenuptial contract, and the contractual features of a will made in conformity therewith, made not only for the benefit of a child of a former marriage, but to which said child was actually a party, though not signing same, cannot be rescinded or abrogated by the husband and wife, after marriage, without the knowledge and consent of such beneficiary and party.
5. As a matter of public policy, courts look with favor upon family settlement agreements, and they will ordinarily be upheld when made with full understanding of the facts and without fraud, undue influence or imposition, and this is true even though it might afterward appear that at the time the family settlement contract was made one of the parties thereto actually had no enforceable right to the property, subject of the contract.
6. Where one obtains or retains legal title to property under circumstances which renders it unconscionable for the holder of the legal title to retain it and enjoy the beneficial interest, equity will impress a constructive trust on the property so acquired in favor of the party who is equitably entitled thereto.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Glen O. Morris, Judge.
Action to enforce terms of antenuptial contract and contractual features of will made in conformity therewith by child of former marriage, beneficiary of and party to such contract, against executrix of deceased father's estate, to impress a trust upon property in hands of such executrix, and for accounting. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants, executrix and children by second marriage, appeal. Affirmed.
Charles D. Scales and Lee G. Gill, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error, Mary Dean, individually and as executrix of Estate of Joseph Charles Dean, deceased.
John F. Eberle and Richard J. Spooner, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error Joseph Dean, Thomas Dean, Patricia Catron, nee Dean, and John Dean.
Richard J. Spooner, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error Guardian ad litem of John Dean, a minor.
Charles Hill Johns, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
Marie Katherine Jelsma, nee Dean, brought this action in the District Court of Oklahoma County against Mary Dean, individually and as executrix of the estate of Joseph Charles Dean, deceased, Thomas Dean, Joseph Dean, Patricia Catron, nee Dean, and John Dean to establish her equitable title in and to an undivided one-half interest in certain real and personal property, and the increase or conversion thereof, legal title to which was in said deceased, and to impress a trust thereon in the hands of said executrix, for delivery of proper conveyances thereof, and for an accounting. Judgment was rendered granting plaintiff the relief prayed for. From separate orders overruling motion for new trial, Mary Dean, individually and as executrix, and Thomas Dean, et al., appeal.
The uncontradicted evidence of plaintiff, together with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, reasonably tends to show that plaintiff was the only child of the marriage of Joseph Charles Dean and Julia Finnegan Dean; that during their marriage Joseph Charles Dean and Julia Dean accumulated through their joint efforts a substantial amount of real and personal property; that some of said property was carried in the names of husband and wife jointly, and some real property in the name of the husband alone; that a part of said property was a bakery in Shawnee which was operated by the husband and wife together and also Marie Katherine; that in 1919 they sold the bakery for a substantial sum, part cash and the balance secured by a mortgage which was afterward paid; that a home was purchased in Oklahoma City, with the intent of moving there, but before such move was made Julia Dean, after a short illness, died; that so far as plaintiff knew no probate of her estate was had; that plaintiff and her father, after the death of Julia Dean, entered into an agreement, in the nature of a family settlement, whereby plaintiff's interest in and ownership of the property owned by her mother prior to her death, as well as the interest which plaintiff would have in the remainder of the property was agreed upon and fixed; on this point plaintiff testified that she obtained the ownership of a one-half interest in all of the property accumulated by the joint efforts of her mother and father through inheritance from her mother and by gift, 'fifty-fifty'; that after her mother's death plaintiff and her father moved to the home in Oklahoma City and thereafter negotiated for and purchased a furniture store which they operated together, and plaintiff also assisted in looking after other rental property and mortgages; two disinterested witnesses testified to statements made by Joseph Charles Dean tending to show that he recognized and acknowledged that Marie Katherine owned an interest in the property standing in his name; that in 1922 Joseph Charles Dean desired to marry one Mary Kahanek; that he and Marie Katherine discussed the making of an antenuptial contract and will with an attorney, who drew an antenuptial contract and discussed its provisions with Marie Katherine and her father; that thereafter, on October 27, 1922, executed said antenuptial contract in Marie Katherine's presence and a copy thereof was give to Marie Katherine; that about a month after the marriage of Joseph Charles Dean and Mary Kahanek he executed a will, dated December 9, 1922, in conformity with the provisions of the antenuptial contract, in which he devised an undivided one-half interest in all his property to Marie Katherine and the other half to his new wife and incorporated in said will as a part and parcel thereof a copy of the antenuptial contract; a copy of this will was also given plaintiff; that plaintiff continued to work in the furniture store and assist her father in the management of said property after the marriage; that after the death of her father, on May 28, 1954, she learned for the first time that her father had executed a new will on May 3, 1938, in which he attempted to revoke all prior wills and rescind the antenuptial agreement, and by the terms of which plaintiff was given $2,000 and all the remainder of the property standing in his name was left to Mary Dean, his widow, and the four children of his marriage with Mary Kahanek Dean, the defendants above named; that said will of May 3, 1938, was admitted to probate in the County Court of Oklahoma County as the last will and testament of said deceased on July 12, 1954; plaintiff instituted this action in District Court on July 26, 1954.
The antenuptial contract and will made in conformity therewith, above referred to, were introduced in evidence. The antenuptial contract provides that it shall be binding upon the parties thereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and, 'upon any and all other persons whatsoever interested in same in any way'; it lists the property, real and personal, standing in the name of Joseph Charles Dean as of the date of the contract, of the total stated value of $48,960; it further provides that any consideration to or from Joseph Charles Dean shall be the same as consideration to or from Marie Katherine Dean, his dependent daughter, 'who it is agreed may carry out, or require the carrying out, of the provisions of this contract, upon his behalf, in case of his consent, absence, inability, or death'; that all property standing in the name of Joseph Charles Dean at the time of marriage is to remain in his name during his lifetime and no division of same is to be made during his lifetime, he to remain in complete charge of same; that in case of divorce said property shall become as it was before the signing of the contract, and that property gained solely through the joint endeavor of husband and wife, over and above said $48,960, should be divided equally between husband and wife and Marie Katherine Dean, each receiving one-third, 'and all such divisions or other such provisions herein shall be made and carried out by the said Joseph Charles Dean, if living, as by a trustee, and if he be dead then by the said Marie Katherine Dean'; that all property belonging to Mary Kahanek at the time of marriage shall remain hers alone forever; 'that in case of the death of the said Marie Katherine Dean all interest of hers in the property hereinbefore set out in detail or that may accrue therefrom, or the value thereof, will revert to the said Joseph Charles Dean'; that in the case of the death of Joseph Charles Dean, before divorce and without children, 'all interest of his' in the property or accruals therefrom will revert to Marie Katherine and Mary Kahanek (Dean) equally; that in case of the death of Mary Kahanek all property of hers which she had before marriage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jernigan v. Jernigan
...and Co-operative Union of America, 1983 OK 17, ¶ 13, 664 P.2d 377, 381; Al's Auto Sales v. Moskowitz, supra, at 588 syl. 2. 27. Dean v. Jelsma, 1957 OK 163, ¶ 0, 316 P.2d 599 syl. 5, ¶ 15, 316 P.2d 599, 606; Dowell v. Dowell, 1957 OK 212, ¶ 0, syl. 1, 316 P.2d 28. "Courts look with favor up......
-
In re Estate of Wellshear
...includes half of the value attributable to the marital contributions and any value added thereto from earnings of the IRA. See Dean v. Jelsma, 1957 OK 163, ¶ 0, 316 P.2d 599, 601 (syllabus 6), which Where one obtains or retains legal title to property under circumstances which renders it un......
-
Boyer v. Boyer
...equitable interest created by the contract. See Christian v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 566 P.2d 445 (Okla.1977). Thus, in Dean v. Jelsma, 316 P.2d 599 (Okla.1957) overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Davis, 536 P.2d 915 (Okla.1975), the court held that a rescission of an antenuptial contr......
-
Davis v. Davis
...of a pleading or motion or put into evidence at trial, there is a waiver of the incompetency to testify. To the extent that Dean v. Jelsma, Okl., 316 P.2d 599 (1957), and Cox v. Gettys, 53 Okl. 58, 156 P. 892 (1916), and cases of similar import are inconsistent with this holding, they are o......