Flowers v. Roberts, 16534
| Decision Date | 20 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 16534,16534 |
| Citation | 66 S.E.2d 612,220 S.C. 110 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | FLOWERS v. ROBERTS. |
James B. Dixon, J. Ralph Gasque, Marion, McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, Florence, for appellant.
Woods & Woods, Marion, for respondent.
This is an appeal by Marion Roberts from an order adjudging that his aunt, Mrs. Ethel E. Flowers, respondent here and plaintiff below, has fee simple title to, and is entitled to the immediate and exclusive possession of, a house and lot in the Town of Marion, and requiring the said Marion Roberts to vacate said property and deliver possession thereof to respondent.
The issues involved can better be understood after the facts leading up to this controversy are stated.
Respondent, now in her late sixties, had three brothers and one sister. All of them were born on a farm about ten miles north of the Town of Marion. One of the brothers, Frank Monroe Roberts, left home early in life and finally entered the lumber business in Washington, D. C., where he was later joined by another brother, Maxwell E. Roberts. They were very successful in this enterprise. The remaining brother, Enos R. Roberts, who is the father of appellant, continued to reside in Marion County. The sister was an invalid and never married. Respondent married John Eastman Flowers.
In 1930, or shortly prior thereto, the house in which respondent and her husband were living, located on a farm in Marion County, was destroyed by fire. They then moved to Marion and rented a house. In 1930 Frank Monroe Roberts purchased a lot in Marion and erected a house thereon at a cost of $9,000. This was done in order to provide a home in which respondent could live and take care of her father, then about eighty years old, and her afflicted sister, about forty-five years of age. Soon after the house was built, respondent and her husband moved in and were shortly thereafter joined by her father and invalid sister. Except for occasional visits to relatives, the father lived in this home until his death in 1933. The sister continued to reside there, except when in the hospital, until her death in 1938. This left respondent and her husband, who had no children, as the sole occupants of the house. Her husband died on March 19, 1947. Frank Monroe Roberts, who entertained an unusually warm affection for his sister, apparently became very much concerned about her living alone and sought to find some suitable person to live with her. He finally determined, with the approval of respondent, to ask appellant and his family, consisting of his wife and three small children, to live with respondent. The proposal by Frank Monroe Roberts to appellant, his nephew, the about thirty years of age, was made in a lengthy letter which, omitting immaterial portions, was as follows:
'Washington, D. C.,
March 27, 1947.
'Dear Marion:
'This, I will admit is some undertaking and it is not proposed by me that you take on such a responsibility without some thought or promise of reward.
* * *
* * *
'I am ready to promise you that in the event you to there and take care of your Aunt Ethel; make a good comfortable home for her and see to her needs, I will provide in my will that you and your heirs are to inherit this property; that is to say, the house and sufficient ground for a comfortable lot. * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'If there are other matters which I have not mentioned and which you would like to have further information on which I can furnish, be sure to call on me for it.
'With very best wishes, I am sincerely,
'Your Uncle, Monroe.'
An acceptance of the foregoing offer was duly communicated to Mr. Roberts, who thereupon wrote appellant as follows:
'Washington, D. C.,
April 8, 1947.
'Dear Marion:
'I understand that you accept the proposition I made you several days ago and expect to move in this week. I am very glad that you could see your way clear to accept the proposition and I certainly hope that you will get along all right.
'Now, Marion, the only thing for you and your family to do is to make up your mind to get along and if any differences arise, which they are bound to, simply have them ironed out at once. Try to have a thorough understanding about everything and if certain things arise which you had not had an understanding about, then bring it out into the open and have an understanding about it.
* * *
* * *
'You are moving in there with the understanding that the property will become yours. Such being the case, you are supposed to take an interest in everything just the same as if it were yours today and I would suggest that you make plans accordingly.
Pursuant to the above agreement, appellant and his family moved into the home of respondent on April 14, 1947. On August 21, 1947, approximately four months later, Frank Monroe Roberts died without making the agreed testamentary provision. He left a will dated October 10, 1942, wherein the property in controversy passed in fee simple under the residuary clause to respondent and her two brothers, Enos R. Roberts and Maxwell E. Roberts. It seems to be conceded that the failure of the testator to carry out the agreement was the result of pure inadvertence. Maxwell E. Roberts, the brother who was associated in business with the testator in Washington, was desirous of making some arrangement which would substantially effectuate his brother's intention. To that end, on September 28, 1948, after consultation with an attorney in Washington, he conveyed for a nominal consideration of $10, his interest in the property to respondent with the expectation, although not incorporated in the deed, that she would devise said property to appellant provided he complied with the terms of his contract. On September 30, 1948, Enos R. Roberts, father of appellant, made a similar conveyance of his interest.
The relations between respondent and appellant's family were harmonious and the arrangement seemed to work out satisfactorily for approximately two years. There were a few instances of minor disagreements during this period but they were quickly ironed out and resulted in no ill feeling. Serious friction, however, arose in April, 1949. Appellant wanted to buy a piano so that his three children, ranging in age from two to ten years, could take music lessons. Respondent seriously objected to this on account of her age and nervous condition. Appellant and his wife insisted that they were going to purchase the piano notwithstanding respondent's objection. Although the piano was never purchased, the breach between the parties progressively widened until, as shown by various incidents hereinafter mentioned, the feeling has now become so bitter that the home has ceased to be a place where respondent can live in peace and happiness.
As a result of the foregoing situation, respondent, on August 16, 1949, brought an action in the magistrate's court to eject appellant from the premises. Appellant raised the question of title, whereupon the proceedings in the magistrate's court were discontinued and the instant action commenced on October 4, 1949.
Respondent alleged in her complaint that she had fee simple title to the property in controversy and was entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. Tolbert, 18628
...each particular case. Mobley v. Quattlebaum, 101 S.C. 221, 85 S.E. 585; Mitchum v. Mitchum, 183 S.C. 75, 190 S.E. 104; Flowers v. Roberts, 220 S.C. 110, 66 S.E.2d 612. It has been said that 'there is no branch of equity jurisdiction in which the Court is allowed the greater exercise of a so......
-
Norton v. Matthews, 18598
...was in very poor health, easily upset, 'mean and grouchy', which facts were well known to the plaintiffs. In the case of Flowers v. Roberts, 220 S.C. 110, 66 S.E.2d 612, this court quoted with approval from 57 Am.Jur. 153, Wills, Section 172, the 'An undertaking 'to take care of' aged perso......
-
Wright v. Trask
...the ranch for over a decade, the master properly granted Wright specific performance of his agreement with Trask. Cf. Flowers v. Roberts, 220 S.C. 110, 66 S.E.2d 612 (1951) (holding that specific performance of a contract to make a will is within the sound discretion of the Trask asserts th......
-
Carroll v. Page, 20014
...view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.' As to actions for specific performance, this Court said in Flowers v. Roberts, 220 S.C. 110, 66 S.E.2d 612: 'The Court had under consideration such a contract in Samuel v. Young, 214 S.C. 91, 51 S.E.2d 367, 370, where it was stat......