Heflin v. Heflin

• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 454.
• Citation: 93 So. 719,208 Ala. 69
• Parties: HEFLIN v. HEFLIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

93 So. 719

208 Ala. 69

HEFLIN v. HEFLIN.

6 Div. 454.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1922

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.

Bill by Harrington P. Heflin against Wyatt Heflin, to have a resulting trust declared on a half interest in lands. From decree overruling demurrers to the bill, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Rudolph & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Henry Upson Sims, of Birmingham, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The bill was to declare a resulting trust upon a half interest in lands. From the decree overruling demurrer, respondent appeals.

Salient averments of the bill are that on January 19, 1901, defendant acquired from the widow and certain of the heirs of J. M Foster, deceased, "an undivided half interest in certain real estate in Jefferson county, Ala.," which is described in detail, and a copy of the deed made a part of the bill by exhibit; that "said deed was executed to defendant by the said heirs of J. M. Foster in consummation of an agreement to purchase the land thereby conveyed which had been arranged by" complainant "with the said J M. Foster during his lifetime, the said Foster agreeing to sell your orator [appellee] and defendant jointly an undivided half interest in the said lands"; that while it was "definitely understood by both the said J. M Foster and the defendant that the land was being sold to your orator and the defendant jointly," it was "agreed that the defendant alone should sign the notes, and, when the notes were fully paid, your orator requested that the deed be executed to the defendant alone, which was done." However, it is averred complainant provided "more than his half of the money to pay the notes as they were met," and that complainant made no claim to more than "a half interest in the title received by defendant on January 19, 1901, in consummation of the purchase."

The averments of the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the bill are that there was no written agreement between Foster or his heirs, on the one hand, and complainant and defendant, on the other, for the purchase of the land, "except the said purchase-money notes executed by the defendant as aforesaid as an example of which" is Exhibit B, the first of said purchase notes, attached to the bill. It is further averred that the only difference between the other notes and that exhibit was "that the second note was for $583.20, payable January 1, 1893; the third note was for $629.85, payable January 1, 1894; the fourth note was for $680.43, payable January 1, 1895; and the fifth note was for $734.86, payable January 1, 1896." This indorsement was written across the exhibit (B):

"Settled by N. York draft drawn by First Natl. Bank, Birmingham, Ala. No. 91711, on Hanover Natl. Bank of N. York, dated Dec. 29, 91."

It is further averred that, when the first and second notes fell due, defendant not being able to furnish any of the money to meet them, complainant provided all of the money therefor; but when the remaining three notes successively became due, neither complainant nor defendant was "able to meet them; so the payee allowed them to be renewed in *** form as Exhibit B under the date of April 1, 1896, one *** being for $793.42, payable January 1, 1897, another for $856.91, payable January 1, 1898, and the last for $925.44, payable January 1, 1899"; that the first of "these renewal notes were paid by your orator on or about its maturity," and the last two notes were "finally paid by your orator about January, 1901"; that, while complainant cannot say at what times the defendant made payments to him for the latter's share of such payments made by complainant on the purchase price of the half interest in said lands, it is nevertheless recognized "that the defendant did repay him his share in full," and that the respective parties are averred to have "had equal amounts invested in the property."

Further averments are that the title and relation of said parties to the property remained substantially unchanged from the receipt by defendant of the Foster deed, dated January 19, 1901, "until, to wit, October 30, 1912," except that one or the other of the parties "advanced the money for the taxes upon their half of the property as they fell due" and "other minor charge or expense," and that it may be that, on some occasions, with complainant's consent, defendant "joined with the Foster heirs in selling and conveying small losts or parcels of the property, but of this" complainant "is not certain," and that the undivided one-half interest in the lands so conveyed on January 19, 1901, to respondent by the Fosters for the use and interest of complainant and respondent was partitioned, divided, and set apart on February 22, 1913-bill to that end being filed October 30, 1912, by T. Oliver Foster Williams, one of the heirs of J. M. Foster, deceased-when a deed "was executed under the direction of the court, conveying to the defendant, Wyatt Heflin, what was taken to be the equivalent of an undivided one-half interest in the total property the title to which had been held by him and the heirs of the late J. M. Foster; and a copy of the deed them executed to the defendant by the register is hereto attached as Exhibit C. And since the execution of said deed Exhibit C the defendant has held the entire title to the properties described therein for the equal benefit of himself and your orator, as the equivalent of their former undivided half interest in the entire property; that is to say, your orator became entitled to an undivided one-half interest in the property described in the register's deed Exhibit C instead of his undivided one-fourth interest in the entire property described in the deed to the defendant from the Foster heirs in January, 1901, Exhibit A; and your orator and the defendant recognized their interest as such."

The ninth paragraph of the bill contains the statement that-

"The defendant has never made him (complainant) a complete statement and accounting of all the moneys he has received from the property by sale and otherwise, nor of the outlays in taxes and improvements imposed by law which he has made for their joint benefit. Nor has the defendant ever executed to your orator any acknowledgment in writing that he (the defendant) holds an undivided half interest in the property for your orator's benefit, although he has repeatedly admitted to your orator in the presence of others that he does so hold; and on one occasion, in September, 1914, in conformity with a request from your orator, he executed to your orator a deed to two of the said lots held by them jointly, without even requiring payment for his own half interest therein. So your orator verily believes that the defendant fully admits your orator's equal ownership with him in all the property."

Complainant further says that he has received from defendant since the aforesaid sale the sum of $5,000 and a conveyance to him of two lots from said tract of land as a part of, and in recognition of their joint ownership in, said lands. Complainant concludes his charge by the averment that he "is entirely ignorant of the actual state of balance of indebtedness between them on account of the property; and the defendant is unable, or has not taken the time to tabulate the items pro and con, or *** to inform your orator what they are, although" he has "requested him to do so." The purpose of the bill is averred to be to fix complainant's "interest in the land or to determine the correct balance of money which may be due" by the respective parties on account of their holdings in the same, and as it is their "mutual duty to have their matters definitely settled by the judgment of a court of equity."

The prayer of the bill is that respondent be declared a trustee for complainant to the extent of a half interest in the lands and the securities or the proceeds of the sale of lots off of the same; that an accounting is necessary, and be directed to determine any balance existing in favor of either party by reason of the trust, and that it be fixed as a charge against the interest of him whose duty it is to pay, if not paid within such time as the court may fix; that partition of such property and securities or proceeds of the sale of portions of the property be ordered, and that "all things necessary to effectually settle the trust between them" be declared and ordered. There is also the averment that complainant "places himself in the hands of the court, and offers to do all things on his part that may be necessary for him to do in equity and good conscience," and concludes with the general and appropriate prayer for process.

Counsel, stating the effect of respondent's demurrer directed to the bill, and to each and every clause, paragraph, allegation, and prayer contained therein, separately and severally, say that the several grounds thereof are that the bill is lacking in equity; that the facts alleged "are not sufficient to constitute a constructive trust"; that facts are not stated with precision sufficient to constitute a resulting trust, and that, from the facts averred, it affirmatively appears that the complainant was guilty of laches or is barred by statute of limitation.

The general rule of pleading in equity is that the bill must contain allegations to show complainant's right to the relief which he seeks, and, failing to set forth the essential facts necessary with sufficient certainty and clearness to enable the court to see plainly that he has such right or title to maintain the bill to the end prayed or warranted under the general prayer, the defect may be challenged by demurrer. This is the early statement of the requirement of equity pleading-that it must show with certainty...