Helm v. Belvin

• Decision Date: 17 June 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 13523
• Citation: 107 Okla. 214,232 P. 382,1924 OK 628
• Parties: HELM et al. v. BELVIN et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 628

232 P. 382

107 Okla. 214

HELM et al. v. BELVIN et al.

Case Number: 13523

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 17, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Taxation -- Liability of Owner of Life Estate.

The owner of a life estate in lands, being in possession and enjoying the rents and profits therefrom, is ordinarily required to pay the general taxes thereon

2. Life Estate -- Liability of Owner for Taxes -- Payment by Remainderman -- Contribution by Other Remaindermen

Where the owner of a life estate in lands fails to pay taxes due by him upon such lands, and the owner of an undivided interest in the remainder, in order to prevent said lands from being sold for taxes, is compelled to pay the taxes due thereon for the benefit of all, equity, where it is equitable so to do, will enforce contribution against the other owners decreeing to the party thus paying said taxes the right to recover primarily from the owner of the life estate and to subject such life estate to the payment of said monies, and decreeing to such party the further right to recover from the owners of the remainder and a lien upon the title and interest of the remaindermen

3. Same--When Contribution Inequitable--Voluntary Payment here the owner of a life estate in real estate has failed to pay taxes on said land, which it was his duty to pay, and the owner of an undivided interest in the remainder has had a receiver appointed for such life estate in a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of subjecting the rents and profits from said lands to the payment of said taxes, and is proceeding to compel the payment of said taxes out of said life estate, and thereupon an owner of another undivided interest in the remainder voluntarily pays said taxes and thereby deprives the plaintiff in such receivership proceedings from being able to subject the life estate to the payment of the taxes due by it, it is not equitable to require the other owners of the remainder to make contribution to the party paying such taxes or to give such party a lien for contribution upon the title of the other remaindermen

4. Appeal and Error--Acquiescence in Judgment--Failure to File Motion for New Trial

A party defendant, suffering a joint judgment, who files no motion for new trial, acquiesces in judgment against him and cannot urge any alleged trial errors. Knox v. Cruel, 72 Okla. 21, 178 P. 91.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3.

Error from District Court, Cotton County; A. S. Wells, Judge.

Action by B. F. Suter against R. H. Harrell, T. C. Harrell, I. C. Harrell and G. A. Nelson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cicero I. Murray, for plaintiffs in error.

Bowling & Farmer, for defendants in error.

LYDICK, J.

¶1 The land involved in this action is located in Garvin county and was the allotment of Josephine Belvin, a Chickasaw Indian, who died intestate on February 6, 1906. She left surviving her the following heirs, to wit: Chas. A. Belvin, her husband; Elizabeth Belvin (now Helm), a daughter; James Belvin, a son; William Belvin, a son; Arabelle Belvin (now Pollard), a daughter; Stella Belvin (now Green), a daughter; and Rosa Belvin (now Davis), a daughter. Under the law of descent and distribution in force in the Indian Territory at the time of the death of the said allottee, Chas. A. Belvin, the surviving husband, became the owner of a life estate in said land and each of the six children became the owner of an undivided one-sixth interest in said land subject to such life estate. The husband continued to occupy said land and take the rents and profits therefrom until August 17, 1920, when he died intestate. In March, 1911, Arabelle Pollard, nee Belvin, daughter of the allottee above named, died intestate, and shortly thereafter her husband, Roy Pollard, died intestate, leaving their daughter, Bell Pollard, as the sole heir to Arabelle Belvin's interest in said land. On May 7, 1915, Rosa Belvin (now Davis), daughter of the allottee, conveyed her one-sixth interest in said land to one Bud Helm.

¶2 This action is one for partition of said lands and was instituted in the district court of Garvin county by Bud Helm and Elizabeth Helm, as plaintiffs, against all other heirs of said allottee, as defendants. James Belvin filed an answer and cross-petition wherein he claimed that in February, 1919, there was due to Garvin county as taxes upon said land the sum of $ 1,032.28, and that the land was about to be sold for taxes, and that he had paid said taxes out of his own funds to prevent the same being lost to the owners of the land. He claimed he was entitled to be subrogated to the lien of Garvin county upon said land to secure the repayment to him of the monies he had thus paid to Garvin county as taxes thereon. Rosa Davis and her husband, Tom Davis, filed an answer and cross-petition claiming that the deed which they had made to Bud Helm as aforesaid had been obtained by fraud, and they asked a cancellation of that deed. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and the court rendered judgment canceling said deed from Rosa Davis and Tom Davis to Bud Helm as fraudulent and rendered judgment in favor of James Belvin, giving him a lien upon said lands for the taxes which he claimed to have paid as aforesaid, and ordering said land partitioned and sold for the benefit of the respective owners as provided by law. The plaintiffs, Bud Helm, Elizabeth Helm, and also Stella Green and Bell Pollard, appealed to this court by petition in error with case-made attached.

¶3 From an examination of the evidence in the record, we are of the opinion that it is insufficient to support the allegations of fraud, and that the judgment of the court canceling such deed for fraud is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, and on said account that portion of the judgment should be reversed. The consideration paid is, at least, reasonably fair under the adverse conditions existing, and little, if any, overreaching appears. See McDonald, Adm'r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271, 190 P. 558; Adams v. Porter, 58 Okla. 225, 158 P. 899; Rogers v. Harris, 76 Okla. 215, 184 P. 459; Washington v. Morton 90 Okla. 142, 216 P. 457; Derdyn v. Low, 94 Okla. 41, 220 P. 945.

¶4 The plaintiffs in error contend that James Belvin did not pay these taxes, but that he merely loaned the money to his father to pay them. They urge that if it be true that James Belvin did pay these taxes, he did it voluntarily for the purpose of protecting his father in his ownership of the life estate in said land and not under such circumstances as would entitle him to be reimbursed by the other owners of said land or to have a lien thereon in order to obtain such reimbursement.

¶5 It is a well-settled and admitted rule of law that it was the duty of Chas. A. Belvin, the owner of the life estate, to pay the taxes on this land. In January, 1919, Chas. A. Belvin was in default in the payment of taxes on said land ever since statehood. Elizabeth Helm, plaintiff in this case, brought a suit in the district court of Garvin county against Chas. A. Belvin alleging his failure to pay these taxes and sought the appointment of a receiver on that ground to take possession of the land and make the amount of said taxes out of said life estate. In that action and on January 30, 1919, the district court did appoint a receiver "with authority to take landlord possession" of such real estate and to rent out the same and out of the rents and profits to pay such taxes. Thereupon James Belvin, by mortgaging certain other lands which he owned individually, borrowed the sum of $ 1,200 for the purpose of furnishing the money out of which such taxes could be paid. The taxes were paid on February 14, 1919, just two weeks after the making of the order for the appointment of this receiver who was to take possession of the land and make the taxes out of the rentals of said life estate. The tax receipts are in evidence and upon their face show the taxes to have been paid by Chas. Belvin, the owner of the life estate, and do not show that the same were paid by James Belvin. This effectively destroyed and ended the receivership proceedings because such...