Fowler v. Fowler
| Decision Date | 18 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--147,74--147 |
| Citation | 325 N.E.2d 98,26 Ill.App.3d 313 |
| Parties | Virginia Welch FOWLER, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, Appellee, v. Dennis Mac FOWLER, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lucie & Heiser, J. D. Lucie, Bushnell, for appellant.
Harris & Harris, Macomb, W. K. Harris, Macomb, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a portion of a decree of the Circuit Court of McDonough County, in a divorce action, which ordered defendant Dennis Fowler, to transfer all his interest in a certain piece of real estate to plaintiff Virginia Fowler. The parties to this action were married in 1964 and owned a number of pieces of real estate as joint tenants. The particular property which is under consideration in this cause consists of a farm near Macomb, Illinois, which was known as the 'Maple Avenue property'. The property was owned by plaintiff's father, Dr. Ralph R. Welch. Plaintiff lived there with here father for some time while defendant Fowler was employed in Fairfield, Iowa, during the first few years of the marriage. The plaintiff is an osteopath and practiced in Macomb with her father.
On May 24, 1966, Dr. Welch entered into a signed agreement with plaintiff and defendant to sell to them the property in question for the sum of $58,000. It provided for a downpayment of $6,000. A Warranty Deed was executed and placed in escrow by Dr. Welch. The buyers each gave Dr. Welch a check for $3,000 to cover the downpayment of $6,000 recited in the contract. At the same time, Dr. Welch gave each buyer a check drawn on his account for exactly the same amount of $3,000 each and both checks were subsequently paid by the bank. The agreement was in the form of an agreement for warranty deed and called for payments of $200 per month beginning December 1, 1966, with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of 4% Per annum. No other payments on the contract were ever made. It appears that the deed was eventually released from escrow but could not be located, if it is still in existence. Dr. Welch died a few weeks after the execution of the contract. In his will, Dr. Welch bequeathed his interest in the contract as vendor to his daughter, Virginia Fowler, plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed an action for divorce on the ground of desertion and was granted a divorce in the McDonough County Circuit Court in December 1973. As a part of the divorce decree, the court ordered all property held by the parties jointly to be divided equally. As to the Maple Avenue property, however, the court granted that property to the plaintiff on the basis of 'special equities'. The court specifically found that no alimony was required from either party and ordered that both parties be forever barred from claiming alimony. The court in the decree required that defendant convey all his interest in the Maple Avenue property to plaintiff.
Defendant Dennis Fowler argues on appeal that the court's disposition of the Maple Avenue property was improper and that the 'special circumstances or equities' required to support the court's award of the property to plaintiff were neither alleged in the complaint nor proven at the hearing.
In the case of Cross v. Cross, 2 Ill.2d 104, 108, 116 N.E.2d 892, 895 (1954), the Supreme Court of this State stated:
The statutory provisions under which a court, in the process of granting a divorce, may order the property of one party transferred to the other apparently appear only in the provisions relating to transfer of property as alimony (which is not applicable here), and in section 18 of chapter 40 of Illinois Reversed Statutes, 1973, where it is provided:
'Whenever a divorce is granted, if it shall appear to the court that either party holds the title to property equitably belonging to the other, the court may compel conveyance thereof to be made to the party entitled to the same, upon such terms as it shall deem equitable.'
Special equities or circumstances must be alleged and proven, normally, to justify a transfer of property from one spouse to another under the terms of section 18 of chapter 40 of Ill.Rev.Stat.1973 (See: Peck v. Peck, 16 Ill.2d 268, 283, 157 N.E.2d 249 (1959); Stevens v. Stevens, 14 Ill.2d 99, 108, 150 N.E.2d 799 (1958)). As stated in Cross v. Cross, 2 Ill.2d 104, 109, 116 N.E.2d 892, 895:
'* * * where special equities are claimed justifying the conveyance of the husband's property to the wife, the special circumstances must be alleged in the complaint and established by the proof and relief can be granted only in accordance with the allegations of the complaint sustained by the proof.'
The requirement that the complaint should allege special equities stems from decisions and not from the statute. (Skoronski v. Skoronski, 395 Ill. 301, 69 N.E.2d 690 (1946)).
In the cause before us, the complaint alleged that the parties owned several tracts of real estate and prayed for a division of such property according to the equities of the parties as they may appear. Defendant admitted ownership of several tracts of real estate in his answer and alleged it also in his countercomplaint. The issue of the division of real estate was thus put before the court, although there were no specific allegations by plaintiff concerning the nature of her special interests in the Maple Avenue property. The lack of allegations here, however, is not a factor for consideration since the testimony which was presented with respect to the Maple Avenue property and its acquisition by the parties, and all of the relevant documents were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pieper v. Pieper
...a sale of a jointly owned marital home. There is no authority to order such a sale except as provided by statute. (Fowler v. Fowler, 26 Ill.App.3d 313, 315, 325 N.E.2d 98; Persico v. Persico, 409 Ill. 608, 611, 100 N.E.2d 904.) Since the Nugent case was not reported in full we quote 'We fin......
-
Blazina v. Blazina, 76--36
...a sale of a jointly owned marital home. There is no authority to order such a sale except as provided by statute. (Fowler v. Fowler, 26 Ill.App.3d 313, 315, 325 N.E.2d 98; Persico v. Persico, 409 Ill. 608, 611, 100 N.E.2d 904.) Since the Nugent case was not reported in full we quote 'We fin......
-
Shumak v. Shumak
...waived the right to raise the question of insufficiency in this court. Balswic v. Balswic, 179 Ill.App. 118, 125, Fowler v. Fowler, 26 Ill.App.3d 313, 325 N.E.2d 98, 100; C.f. Chmiel v. Chmiel, 399 Ill. 91, 95, 77 N.E.2d In the cause before us the trial court determined that plaintiff was e......
-
Lewanski v. Lewanski, 76-1345
...raised his attack on the pleadings for the first time on appeal, and has thereby waived the issue from review. Fowler v. Fowler (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 313, 325 N.E.2d 98. In order to prove that she had the special equities in the properties in question that are required by section 17 of the ......