Evans' Estate, In re, WD

Decision Date30 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
CitationEvans' Estate, In re, 614 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. App. 1981)
PartiesIn re the ESTATE OF Levi Webb EVANS, Deceased. James EVANS and Helen Evans, Appellants, v. Levi Webb EVANS, Deceased, R. Paul Evans, Administrator, Respondent. 31563.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

James B. Wilson, Windsor, for appellants.

Robert L. Cox, Poague, Wall, Eshelman & Cox, Clinton, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P. J., and SHANGLER and SOMERVILLE, JJ.

SHANGLER, Judge.

The appeal comes from an adjudication by the Probate Division of the Circuit Court on a petition by the administrator of an estate to discover assets. The question was whether a deposit of money made by the decedent to the account of the defendants belonged to them as a gift or was the property of the estate. The court determined that the money was a part of the estate and the defendants appeal.

The principals the deceased (Levi Evans), the administrator (Paul Evans), and the defendant (James Evans) are brothers. 1

In early September of 1972, Levi Evans suffered a judgment against him for $24,000 from a vehicular collision at a time when he was without insurance coverage. His truck was taken in execution of the judgment and he became concerned about his other property. Levi made inquiry of an official California agency, and was informed that the bonds he owned were also subject to execution of the judgment. That determined him to remove his assets from California. The next month, Levi traveled to Missouri to consult with brother (now administrator) Paul to accomplish that end. Levi executed to Paul Evans (and his wife) six checks, each for $500, to be kept for him "where no one would know about it." That sum of $3,000 was retransferred to Levi some months later by money order so as to avoid any record of the transaction. At about the same time (October 6, 1972), Levi transferred $45,385 to the account of brother James (and wife Helen). The testimony of the bank teller was that on that date Levi, in the company of brother James and another bank employee, negotiated government bonds and deposited the $45,385.52 cash into the joint James and Helen Evans account. The teller testified also that Levi presented other bonds for cash but was advised to defer the negotiation until November 1st for the accumulation of interest. On that date, as instructed by Levi Evans, the $10,500 cash for the bonds was deposited to the account of James and Helen Evans. 2 The defendants Evans acknowledge they received from the bank the record slip for each deposit. It is the aggregate of these two deposits which was the subject of the discovery of assets procedure in the probate division of the court.

In the course of that October of 1972 sojourn, Levi disclosed to brother Paul that upon his death, Paul would find all the property records in a briefcase at the California residence. When Levi died, the case was opened and disclosed the personal records of the decedent a ledger card in the hand of the decedent among them. That ledger, dated September 28, 1976, (two months before death) recorded a number of transactions. The first entry recorded: James W. Evans $55,885.00 (the total of the two deposits to that account.) The second entry had recorded the $3,000 transaction with brother Paul, but was then marked over as deleted (presumably upon the retransfer of those funds). The ledger was inscribed with other computations in figures which derive a 6% interest on $55,885.00 from the dates of deposit. Still other entries recorded the names of numerous banks throughout the several states other than California, with the amounts of the several deposits. That these banks were actual depositaries of funds of the decedent was corroborated by inquiry. These deposits yielded $17,000 to the estate. The last testament of Levi Evans made reference only to the owned residence, and to no other ownership or asset of the estate. (The residence was sold by Paul to pay the outstanding judgment against Levi.)

There was evidence by the defendant brother James to show that the two deposits were meant as gifts. That testimony was by a father and son, acquaintances of Levi, both also friends of the defendant James. The father related that in December of 1972, during a hospital illness, Levi told him that he had given all his money to Jim because Jim had taken care of Levi and the family that Jim was "the pillar of strength in the family" and that "Jim would always take care of (him)." The testimony of the son was of a declaration by Levi of like tenor some time later. The recollection of the father was, also,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • In re True
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Missouri
    • November 4, 2002
    ...for the purpose of defeating creditors should not be permitted. The Trustee has directed the Court's attention to In re Estate of Evans, 614 S.W.2d 315, 316-17 (Mo.App.1981) (observing that a transfer made for the purpose of placing assets beyond the reach of creditors is not one made with ......
  • Dixon v. Bradsher
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 1989
    ...the law in that the evidence showed that the requisite elements for an inter vivos gift were missing." We are cited to In re Estate of Evans, 614 S.W.2d 315 (Mo.App.1981), which states the essentials of a valid inter vivos gift. We do not disagree with the ruling in Evans, but the questions......
  • Duvall v. Henke, 53504
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1988
    ...of property by donor to donee; and 3) acceptance by donee whose ownership takes effect immediately and absolutely. In re Evans' Estate, 614 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Mo.App.1981). The party claiming that an inter vivos gift exists, has the burden of proving the elements of gift by clear, cogent and ......
  • Marriage of Hardy, In re, 45707
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1983
    ...no transfer of the stock in question. There was no documentary evidence to show the stock had been transferred. See, In re Estate of Evans, 614 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Mo.App.1981). The evidence supports the trial court's finding stepfather owned all the nursing home stock and no effective transfe......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 20.18 Gifts
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Estate Administration Deskbook Chapter 20 Discovery of Assets
    • Invalid date
    ...donor’s delivery of the property to the donee; and · the donee’s acceptance and immediate and absolute ownership. In re Estate of Evans, 614 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981); In re Estate of Hoffman, 490 S.W.2d 98, 102 (Mo. 1973). The standard of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing e......