Exchange Trust Co. v. Godfrey
| Decision Date | 26 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 16899. |
| Citation | 261 P. 197,128 Okla. 108,1927 OK 215 |
| Parties | EXCHANGE TRUST CO. et al. v. GODFREY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1927.
Application to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1927.
Syllabus by the Court.
A deed absolute on its face, and a separate agreement executed on the same date, wherein the grantee agrees to reconvey the real estate to the grantor upon the payment of the consideration named in the deed on a specified time constitute together a "mortgage."
Unless such instruments are filed and recorded together, they and each of them shall have no other effect than an unrecorded mortgage, and the recording of the principal instrument shall secure no rights to the holder thereof.
Essential and necessary averments of a plea of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of defect must state the deed of purchase, the date, parties, that the vendor was seized in fee and in possession. The consideration must be stated, with a distinct averment that it was bona fide and truly paid notice must be denied previously to and down to the time of paying the consideration; the answer or plea must show how the grantor acquired title.
Where property is purchased by funds of the wife and title thereto is placed in the husband's name, a presumption arises that he holds the property in trust for her; this upon the obligation of the husband to furnish the wife's support.
Section 11319, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, provides that no person convicted of having taken or caused or procured to be taken the life of another shall inherit from such person, or receive any interest in the estate of the decedent, or take by devise or legacy or descent or distribution from him or her any portion of his or her estate, etc., and, in view of this statute, the fact that one is incarcerated and stands charged with the murder of his spouse is sufficient notice to any one dealing with him for an interest in real estate to place such person or persons under the duty of making inquiry as to the fact. And such fact known to purchasers of real estate is sufficient to defeat a plea of innocent purchaser for value.
Section 466, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, provides that an action may be brought for the purpose of determining an adverse estate or interest in real estate and joined with an action to recover possession of such real estate by any person not in possession, this statute is liberally construed, and if in addition to an action for determining an adverse estate or interest in real estate, a plaintiff states such allegations as would, if proved, entitle plaintiff to possession with a general prayer for relief, such pleading states a cause of action sufficient to warrant the relief sought.
Record examined, and held, that the property in question was purchased by the funds of the deceased wife, and constituted her separate and individual property, and her heirs at law are entitled to have declared and enforced a trust to such property; that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence. Reversed and remanded, with directions to render judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; A. S. Wells, Judge.
Action by the Exchange Trust Company, administrator of Bertha Godfrey, deceased, and others, against J. F. Godfrey and others, for the enforcement of a trust, the appointment of a receiver to determine heirship, and to quiet title. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded with directions.
J. J. Henderson and Linn & Spradling, all of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
A. F. Moss, J. C. Farmer, John L. Ward, L. G. Owen, and W. A. Chase, all of Tulsa, and A. B. Campbell, of Pawhuska, for defendants in error.
The Exchange Trust Company, a corporation, as administrator of the estate of Bertha Godfrey, deceased, commenced this action for the enforcement of a trust, for the appointment of a receiver to determine heirship, and to quiet title.
The facts alleged were that Bertha Godfrey, by gunshot wound, was murdered by her husband, J. F. Godfrey, in Tulsa on September 9, 1922, and she died without issue, leaving surviving her J. F. Godfrey, her husband, L. D. Day and Nancy Belle Day, her father and mother; that she was seized of certain personal property and real estate. The real estate consisted of the north 60 feet of lot 1, block 99, original town of Tulsa, Tulsa county, Okl., valued at $25,000, and the east one-half of southeast quarter of section 14, township 22, range 6 east, Pawnee county, Okl., valued at $8,500. The personal property in dispute consisted of the household goods and furnishings of an apartment erected upon the real estate first above described.
It is further alleged that the described property was and is the individual and separate property of the deceased and acquired from her individual earnings and means; that J. F. Godfrey held the legal title to the same in trust for Bertha Godfrey, deceased, but that he contributed nothing to the purchase of the same, and therefore had no right nor title thereto; that the defendants (naming them) claimed some right or title to said property, but that such interest, if any, was inferior to plaintiff'; that J. F. Godfrey was on April 7, 1923, convicted of the murder of Bertha Godfrey and sentenced to life imprisonment; that L. D. Day and Nancy Belle Day, father and mother, are the sole heirs of Bertha Godfrey, deceased, and entitled to inherit her estate; that defendants are in possession of said property and refuse to give plaintiffs possession; and that the defendants are dissipating rents and profits and injuring the property in Tulsa.
Plaintiffs pray for the appointment of a receiver, a judgment for the enforcement of a trust, declaring the property to be held in trust by J. F. Godfrey for the use and benefit of L. D. Day and Nancy Belle Day, for the determination of heirs, decreeing L. D. Day and Nancy Belle Day to be heirs at law and next of kin, and decreeing them to be the owners of the equitable and legal title in the described property, and the quieting of title as against the defendants, and for "such other and further relief, be the same general special, legal, or equitable, as the court may deem proper to decree."
A general demurrer was filed and overruled. Then O. L. Harmon and Mrs. O. L. Harmon answered, disclaiming interest in certain personal property, that is, personal effects and life insurance and disclaiming as to the land in Pawnee county, but denying Bertha Godfrey, deceased, owned the furniture in the apartment situated on the real estate in Tulsa, and denied that the real estate was the separate property of the deceased, but alleged that J. F. Godfrey purchased the same from his own means and conveyed the same by warranty deed to L. G. Owen, Ed. Crossland, John L. Ward, and W. A. Chase, who were innocent purchasers for value without notice of defects and purchasers upon faith of the record title. The answer admits possession of the Tulsa property by the answering defendants and claims title by purchase of an undivided one-half interest from L. G. Owen and alleges that answering defendants were also innocent purchasers without notice.
W. A. Chase and John L. Ward filed their separate answer, the same in effect as that of Harmons. Plaintiffs demurred to the answers, which demurrer was overruled by the court, whereupon the plaintiffs filed a reply.
The evidence discloses that J. F. Godfrey employed Ed Crossland, W. A. Chase, L. G. Owen, and John L. Ward, defendants, as attorneys to defend him in his trial for murder, and conveyed to them the real estate in controversy to secure their fee.
On trial the plaintiffs insisted that the action was at law and urged the right to try the facts to a jury. The defendants argued that it was an equity case. The court impaneled a jury with the following interlocutory:
At the close of plaintiffs' evidence and at the time of the presentation of a demurrer to the testimony by defendants, the court discharged the jury upon the ground that the cause was in equity, and overruled the demurrer, and at the conclusion of the defendants' evidence the court found that the property in Pawnee county was no longer an issue, the same having been sold under a mortgage foreclosure; that the property, real and personal, in issue in Tulsa county, was purchased, save and except the sum of $700, by funds of J. F. Godfrey, and that at the time the Tulsa real estate was deeded to J. F. Godfrey it was at the suggestion of Mrs. Godfrey, and that then she made the statement that after his death she would be the owner of the property; that all of the furniture was purchased by check on Godfrey's account in his own name and on his account by Mrs. Godfrey, and that J. F. Godfrey was the legal owner of both the real and personal property; that defendants were purchasers of the property for good and valuable consideration without notice; and that defendants are the owners of the property (except the defendants who disclaim). J. F. Godfrey then filed a disclaimer over the objection of plaintiffs.
Motion for new trial was filed and overruled and judgment was entered as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial