Grott v. Grott

• Decision Date: 05 March 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23164.,23164.
• Citation: 249 S.W. 55
• Parties: GROTT v. GROTT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

249 S.W. 55

GROTT v. GROTT et al.

No. 23164.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 5, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. McElhinney, Judge.

Suit by Joseph Grott against Margaret Grott and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A. E. L. Gardner, of Clayton, for appellants.

C. J. Anderson, of St. Louis, for respondent.

JAMES T. BLAIR, J.

This is a suit to cancel a deed. Judgment was rendered as prayed, and this appeal followed.

Respondent and appellant Margaret are husband and wife, and appellant Sophia is their daughter. The petition alleges that respondent and his wife were the owners by the entireties of the lot in question, and that in December, 1919, respondent contemplated a trip to another state in order to secure employment; that respondent and his wife then occupied the premises and contemplated selling them; that, in order to expedite a sale in the event a purchaser could be secured, respondent and his wife signed a warranty deed in which no grantee was named, with the express agreement that no grantee's name should be inserted and the deed should not be "negotiated or delivered to any one unless a purchaser should be found who would pay an amount satisfactory to both" respondent and his wife; that no such purchaser was ever found, and that respondent did not consent to the insertion of any name as grantee and never consented that the "deed should be negotiated and delivered to any one or filed in said recorder's office"; that on November 3, 1920, respondent brought suit for divorce; that before doing so he asked for the return of the deed and notified his wife not to insert the name of any grantee therein and not to "deliver said deed to any one"; that on November 4, 1920, the deed was filed in the recorder's office, and that it then purported to convey the property to appellant Sophia, the daughter, whose name had been inserted therein without respondent's consent; that appellants entered into a conspiracy to cheat and defraud respondent, and in furtherance thereof inserted Sophia's name in the deed as grantee, without any consideration, and caused the deed to be filed and recorded; that respondent has received no consideration for the conveyance of the property; and that these things were done without his knowledge or consent and cast a cloud upon his title which he asks to have removed and the deed canceled.

The answer is as follows:

"Now come the defendants, and for their answer to plaintiff's petition state that the defendant Margaretha Grott is the wife of the plaintiff, and that the defendant Sophia Grott is his daughter; that on the 5th day of December, 1919, the plaintiff, Joseph Grott, and his said wife, Margaretha Grott, executed and delivered it warranty deed to the property described in plaintiff's petition to the defendant Sophia Grott; and that on the 4th day of November, 1920, said deed was duly filed for record in the office of the recorder of deeds within and for St. Donis county. Defendants, further answering plaintiff's petition, state that plaintiff has no right, title, or interest, either legal or equitable, in or to the real estate described in plaintiff's petition. Defendants, further answering, deny each and every allegation in plaintiff's petition. Wherefore defendants, having fully answered, ask to go hence with their costs."

The reply was a genera: denial.

Respondent is a carpenter. The lot in question was bought prior to 1907. Appellant Margaret conducted the purchase and directed the deed to be made to herself and her husband. The grantor did not know respondent. In 1907 a house had been built on the lot and began to be occupied by the family. The marital life of the pair was not a happy one, and they gradually grew apart. The husband worked at his trade in other states at times. He sent home considerable sums of money at frequent intervals. The wife had had a concession at the World's Fair at St. Louis, and thereafter was in the insurance business for a time. Prior to December 5, 1919, the two had listed the property in question with a real estate agent for sale. The husband had secured work in Michigan, and he and his wife concluded, in order to facilitate a transfer in case a buyer was found, in the husband's absence, and to avoid the necessity of sending the deed to him, to execute a deed it which the grantee's name was to be left in blank so that the name of the purchaser could be written in in case a purchaser was found. This appears from the testimony of the real estate agent and the scrivener who drew the deed which grew out of this agreement. This deed was executed on December 5, 1919. The husband then departed. He continued to send money. In October or November, 1920, upon a trip home, he made discoveries which moved him to sue for divorce. This suit was begun November 3, 1920, and summons served. On November. 4, 1920, the deed of December 5, 1919, was filed for record. In it the name of appellant Sophia, the daughter of the pair, had been inserted at appellant Margaret's...