Holman v. Holman

• Decision Date: 29 February 1916
• Docket Number: No. 17673.,17673.
• Citation: 183 S.W. 623
• Parties: HOLMAN v. HOLMAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

183 S.W. 623

HOLMAN v. HOLMAN.

No. 17673.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 29, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laclede County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Suit by Lucy A. Holman against Absolom F. Holman. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Erasmus C. Hall, of Kansas City, for appellant. I. W. Mayfield & Son and J. T. Moore, all of Lebanon, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

The parties to this suit are husband and wife. With one exception, the facts are practically undisputed. Plaintiff, whilst the wife of the defendant, inherited property from her father's estate which realized her $3,400 in cash. This money the defendant admits he got. Of this sum he invested $2,200 in a farm of about 159 acres in Laclede county, and took the deed in the name of both of them. He says with the consent of his wife; she says not. Shortly afterward the deed was turned over to the wife, and she has had knowledge of its contents ever since. The land was bought in September, 1901. It is charged in the answer that the parties separated as man and wife in 1911, and the petition was filed herein on January 1, 1912. It is practically undisputed that defendant put valuable improvements on the land with idea he had an interest therein, which improvements were paid for by him. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the money then in the hands of the husband was to be used in the purchase of a farm. The family consisted of the husband, wife, eight sons and one daughter. The land is worth some $45 per acre now.

By the first count of her petition the plaintiff seeks to have a trust declared. She asks that the court declare the land and all improvements to be hers, and that her husband was a mere trustee for her in so far as his apparent title appeared. By the second count she sought to recover the additional $1,200 of the $3,400 received by the husband. A part of the answer becomes material because it is said that no estoppel is pleaded.

After a general denial the answer to the first count of the petition reads:

"Defendant, further answering, and by way of equitable relief and defense, represents to the court the facts to be that he and the plaintiff are man and wife, that they were married in the state of Missouri in the year 1881, that nine children were born of said marriage, and that it is true that plaintiff received from her relatives the sum of $3,400.92, and that $2,200 of said amount was invested in the lands described in plaintiff's petition, but defendant avers that said investment was made with plaintiff's full knowledge and consent, and the title to said land was made to plaintiff and defendant jointly at her instance and request, and that plaintiff has full possession and control of the deed to said land, and at the time of making said investment the relations between plaintiff and defendant were agreeable and mutual, and remained such until the year 1911. Defendant further states that he also received the sum of $3,000 as an inheritance from his mother's estate in the year 1910, and that prior to the said time he had borrowed the sum of $2,000 from his brother, and expended said amount in the improvement and enhancing the value of the land described in plaintiff's petition, and was all done with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

"Defendant further says that he expended the sum of about $1,800 from the amount borrowed from his brother in erecting a two-story frame dwelling house on said described premises, and that he expended about $1,000 in clearing out and fencing said lands, and that he spent the further sum of $250 for outbuildings, digging a well or cistern and ponds on said premises, and has continuously paid the taxes on said land; that all of said expenditures and improvements were made of said premises with the full knowledge and consent of plaintiff and long after she was fully apprised that the title to said lands were taken in the names of her and defendant.

"Defendant further states that said lands by and on account of the said improvements and expenditures so made by defendant greatly enhanced the value of said lands, and that by reason of said improvements and expenditures by defendant said farm and lands are now worth the sum of $____, and that defendant is now ____ years of age, and has worked and labored on said lands, with the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, for the period of ten years. Wherefore defendant prays the court to diligently inquire and ascertain the amounts expended by both plaintiff and defendant in improving and enhancing the value of said premises and purchasing same, and by its decree to adjudge and determine the rights, title, and interest in said premises according to equity and the dictate of good conscience."

By answer to second count the defendant avers that the $1,200 in said count claimed was spent in the support of the family and in the purchase of stock for the farm. After a general denial of new matter in the answer the reply reads:

"Further answering, plaintiff denies that defendant put improvements on the premises described in the petition as alleged in said answer, and plaintiff says, if he did put any improvements thereon, it was done more than five years before the filing of the pleadings herein, and, if put on by defendant at his own expense, were so put on with a full knowledge of the fact that plaintiff was the sole owner of said lands and had given him no authority so to do. Having fully replied, plaintiff renews her prayer for the relief asked in her petition."

The court nisi found the facts as follows:

"The court finds the facts in this case to be that the plaintiff and defendant, being husband and wife, entered into an agreement with each other that the defendant was to find a suitable and satisfactory farm and buy the same with money in his hands belonging to plaintiff (in the amount of $2,200), and to take the title to said land in the name of plaintiff and defendant jointly; that in pursuance to said agreement the defendant purchased the farm in question, and paid therefor the said sum of $2,200 of the money of plaintiff as aforesaid, and that he took the title as agreed to between himself and plaintiff in the name of himself and wife jointly; that, relying upon said agreement as being valid and binding, and believing that he and his wife were joint owners of said land, and that his title thereto was good and perfect in him, the defendant in good faith, with his own money and labor, put valuable and lasting improvements on said land to the value of $1,200 which greatly enhanced the value of said land; that he paid the taxes on said land with his own money for ____ years to the amount of about $300; that the products of said land during said time were used for the support of the family; that plaintiff, knowing the said agreement between herself and husband and that the title of said lands were taken in their names jointly, and purchased with her money, permitted the defendant to make such improvements without objection or protest. The court further finds that the defendant had placed in his hands an additional sum of money to the amount of $1,200 belonging to his wife which he used for his own purpose and for the support of the family. The court further finds that the plaintiff never made any agreement in writing for the defendant to use the said sum of $1,200, and that the agreement to purchase the land as aforesaid with plaintiff's money and to take title thereto in their names jointly was not in writing."

In the abstract the judgment is thus described:

"Whereupon the court made and entered its judgment and decree to the effect that plaintiff have and recover of the defendant the sum of $3,528, being the amount of money belonging to plaintiff and received by the defendant, with interest thereon from the filing of plaintiff's petition, and divesting plaintiff of the legal title of the one undivided half of the lands in suit, and investing the whole title in the defendant, and the court refused to declare the trust asked for in the petition. To which action and judgment of the court the plaintiff at the time excepted, and still excepts."

There should be added that the judgment gave plaintiff a lien upon the land to secure the money judgment described above. This sufficiently states the facts of the case.

I. At the outset in this case it must be conceded that the general rule is to the effect that, if the husband takes funds inherited by the wife after the marriage, and invests these funds in lands, placing the title in his name, he holds such title as trustee for the wife. It has also been held very clearly ever since ...