Hodge v. Conley, KCD
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 543 S.W.2d 326 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | Barbara HODGE, Appellant, v. Orel E. CONLEY et al., Respondents. 28206. |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1976 |
Page 326
v.
Orel E. CONLEY et al., Respondents.
Page 327
R. Lynn Myers, St. Joseph, for appellant.
Theodore M. Kranitz, St. Joseph, for respondents.
Before DIXON, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
WASSERSTROM, Judge.
By this suit for partition, plaintiff seeks a sale of certain real estate and the distribution to her as a tenant in common of one-fourth of the proceeds. Defendant Orel E. Conley resists on the theory that he is owner of the entire title as the surviving tenant
Page 328
by the entirety. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found for defendant Orel. Plaintiff appeals.Title, to the extent here pertinent, originated by a warranty deed from Velva Boyd to Orel Edmund Conley and Ora Elizabeth Conley dated February 3, 1967. That deed designated the grantees Orel and Ora as 'husband and wife.' That deed was executed and delivered pursuant to a real estate contract dated February 1, 1967, which also designated Orel and Ora as 'husband and wife' and was signed by both of them. The purchase price was $15,000, of which $6,000 was financed by a loan from Provident Savings & Loan Association of St. Joseph.
On June 29, 1972, Ora executed a quit claim deed naming herself and two children by an earlier marriage (one of those children being the plaintiff) as joint tenants. That deed which was introduced in evidence by plaintiff recites: 'Grantor states that on February 3, 1967, when she and Orel Edmond Conley acquired title to this realty from Velva V. Boyd, they were not yet man and wife, even though their title deed described them as such. They were later married in Miami, Oklahoma on 6/16/67.'
Ora died August 1, 1973. At the time of her death the purchase money loan had been paid down to $820.23, which balance was paid by Orel subsequent to Ora's death. Also after her death, the quit claim deed dated June 29, 1972, was filed for record, and it was then that Orel learned of that conveyance for the first time.
Orel testified that he and Ora had gone through two marriage ceremonies, both in Miami, Oklahoma. He stated that the first of those occurred on June 7, 1966. He testified that a document of some sort accompanied that ceremony but '(i)t wasn't a legal certificate.' Whatever that document was, it has become lost. Sometime during the course of the next year some question arose as to the legality of the marriage. Orel and Ora discovered that they did not have a legal marriage license, and despite efforts to do so they were unable to find the certificate which they received at the time of the 1966 ceremony. Because '(i)f there was something unlegal about it, that we wanted to make it right,' the parties then returned to Miami, Oklahoma, and went through a second ceremony. A certificate of marriage of the second ceremony dated June 16, 1967, was placed in evidence.
Orel further testified that from and after June, 1966, he and Ora lived together as husband and wife. He further testified that at the time of the property purchase in February of 1967, he fully believed that he and Ora were lawfully husband and wife. After the filing of the present lawsuit, Orel went to Miami, Oklahoma, to check with the people who were witnesses to the 1966 marriage or anyone that had anything to do with the marriage, but was not able to locate any of those persons.
Somewhat restated, the points made by plaintiff on this appeal are that the trial court erred (1) in finding that Orel and Ora took title as tenants by the entirety, because they were not legally married at the time of the conveyance to them; (2) in permitting Orel to testify concerning a marriage in 1966, because his testimony was barred by the Dead Man's Statute, § 491.010, RSMo 1969; and (3) in finding that it would be inequitable to deprive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hesington v. Hesington's Estate, 12166
...has not been declared by the Supreme Court. Nor has the issue been dealt with decisively by the Court of Appeals. In Hodge v. Conley, 543 S.W.2d 326, 330 (Mo.App.1976) the court observed that Oklahoma, "where the 1966 marriage occurred and presumably where the parties then lived, recognized......
-
Aldrich v. Aldrich
...and general reputation, despite [an] inability to show a marriage license or any record of the issuance of one."[6] Hodge v. Conley, 543 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Mo. App. 1976); see also Suddeth v. Hawkins, 202 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Mo. App. 1947) ("[T]he ordinary presumption of marriage that obtains wh......
-
Yun v. Yun, WD
...a license, a valid marriage would be declared. Id. at 136. There is a strong public policy in favor of marriage. In Hodge v. Conley, 543 S.W.2d 326, 329-30 (Mo.App.1976), the court looks at the presumption resulting therefrom, [A] presumption of a ceremonial marriage arises upon a showing o......
-
Aldrich v. Aldrich
...and general reputation, despite [an] inability to show a marriage license or any record of the issuance of one."6 Hodge v. Conley , 543 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Mo. App. 1976) ; see also Suddeth v. Hawkins , 202 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Mo. App. 1947) ("[T]he ordinary presumption of marriage that obtains w......