Hall v. Hall

• Decision Date: 11 November 1930
• Citation: 32 S.W.2d 536,236 Ky. 42
• Parties: HALL v. HALL et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

32 S.W.2d 536

236 Ky. 42

HALL v. HALL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

November 11, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County, Common Law and Equity Division.

Action by C. T. Hall against Elizabeth Hall and another. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

John J Howe and Charles Strother, both of Covington, for appellant.

Alex Howard, of Covington, for appellee.

WILLIS J.

C. T Hall instituted an action against his two infant children seeking equitable relief. The petition as amended was dismissed on demurrer, resulting in this appeal by Hall.

The petition alleged that Cora T. Hall, former wife of the appellant, had died intestate, survived by two children, who were the defendants. Cora T. Hall and her sister were the joint owners of a tract of land in Kenton county. Cora T Hall acquired by purchase the undivided half interest of her sister. The consideration was $4,000, for which Cora T. Hall executed her note to her sister due one day after date. Thereafter, Cora T. Hall executed a deed whereby she attempted to convey an undivided half interest in the land to her husband, C. T. Hall. The consideration recited was his agreement to pay the $4,000 purchase money due to the sister, to secure which a lien was reserved. It was alleged also, in the original petition, that Hall had paid $2,850 of the consideration, and had erected valuable improvements on the land at an expense of $1,500, which exceeded the rental value of the property during the period of his possession. It was alleged, further, that he had been given possession of the land when the conveyance was made and that he was still in possession of the property. It was expressly stated in the petition that the deed of Mrs. Hall to the plaintiff was void, but it was claimed that the title should be perfected in plaintiff in order to secure his payment of the consideration and to reimburse him for the value of the improvements.

In an amended petition, Hall alleged that subsequent to the filing of the petition, he had paid the remainder of the consideration due for the land, and asserted an equity because of the purchase money paid and lasting improvements made on the land. He averred that it was to the interest and advantage of his children that the land be conveyed to him. Upon this appeal, it is insisted that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition and in refusing to award him any relief.

The argument for the appellant is that although the deed was void he was entitled to specific enforcement of the contract. He relies especially upon the case of Doty v. Cox, 22 S.W. 321, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 68.

It is true that in working out the equities of that case, a husband was compelled to keep property which had been conveyed to him by his wife and her sister in consideration of the payment by him of several debts. It was done because it was inequitable to change the situation which the parties themselves had created. The husband asserted an agreement with his wife to the effect that she would convey to him other land that she had inherited in addition to that she and her sister had conveyed to him. The court said that the deed from the wife passed no title and only the title of the sister passed to the husband. It was expressly held that no agreement between the husband and wife could be enforced, but the land was liable for the debts the husband had paid and the heirs had no interest in it because such debts exceeded the entire value. In adjusting the equities the husband was compelled to keep the land for the debts he had paid. The circumstances in that case clearly distinguish it from the present one. It is apparent that the husband cannot enforce any contract he had with his wife, and the deed she made is wholly void. Ky. St. § 506; Duncan v. Jenkins, 215 Ky. 543, 286 S.W. 783; Farley v. Stacey, 177 Ky. 109, 197 S.W. 636, 1 A. L. R. 1181.

It is insisted, however, that the petition stated a cause of action, in that it exhibited an equitable interest in the appellant to the extent of the consideration he had paid, and in so far as the improvements he had made on the property enhanced the vendible value thereof. If the petition as amended stated a cause of action and demanded the appropriate relief, it was error to sustain the general demurrer thereto. Civil Code of Practice, § 90; Farley v. Gibson, 235 Ky. 164, 30 S.W.2d 876.

The pleading contained a prayer for the plaintiff to be adjudged a lien on the property to the extent of the consideration paid. It is an ancient rule that...