Hughes v. Helzer, 15178.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 15180.,No. 15179.,No. 15178.,15178.,15180.,15179. |
| Citation | 182 Or. 205,185 P.2d 537 |
| Parties | HUGHES <I>v.</I> HELZER HELZER <I>v.</I> HUGHES ET AL. HELZER <I>v.</I> HUGHES ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
9. More than a preponderance of the evidence is not required in any civil case, but to establish a constructive trust proof in order to preponderate, must be of an extraordinary persuasiveness. O.C.L.A. § 2-1001, subd. 5.
Trusts — Constructive trust
10. Plaintiff's uncorroborated and unconvincing testimony that contract for purchase of three tracts of realty entered into by plaintiff and defendant had not been surrendered except so far as necessary to permit plaintiff to become sole purchaser of the one tract would not be accepted as true for purpose of establishing a constructive trust, where plaintiff's testimony was contradicted by defendant and by vendor who was a disinterested witness and was not alleged to have been a party to any fraud against plaintiff.
Vendor and purchaser — Discharge — Surrender
11. Where plaintiff and defendant contracted to purchase three tracts of realty, procuring by plaintiff of a new contract of purchase covering one of three tracts terms of which were inconsistent with and could not stand together with those of the original contract covering the three tracts was a "discharge" or "surrender" of the original contract.
See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for all other definitions of "Discharge" and "Surrender".
Vendor and purchaser — Contract — Abandoned — Parol
12. A written contract for sale of land could be abandoned by parol.
13. Evidence was not sufficiently strong, clear, and convincing to establish a constructive trust in favor of former husband to realty, the purchase price of which was allegedly paid for by him and title to which was taken in the name of the former wife.
Trusts — Trust property — Changed form
14. Generally, no change effected by trustee in form of trust funds will prevent a court of equity from aiding beneficial owner in reaching the trust property in its changed form and in procuring a transfer thereof.
Trusts — Aliquot part — Resulting trust
15. Where one contributes an aliquot part of the whole purchase money, and it is agreed that he is to have an interest in the property proportionate to his contribution, a resulting trust will be raised in his favor.
Trusts — Evidence — Resulting trust
16. Evidence that daughter had paid one-half of the cost of land and improvements, title to which was taken in the name of her mother, notwithstanding the lack of a definite recollection of the exact amount thereof, was sufficiently strong, clear, and convincing to establish a resulting trust upon the land in favor of the daughter.
Trusts — Family purchase
17. The law favors agreements for all members of family to share equally in benefits of family purchase of realty although the contributions of each member may be unequal.
Trusts — Family contribution — Presumption
18. Where members of a family contribute to a common fund for the purchase of real property, title to which is taken in name of one of them and there being no evidence that a gift was intended equity will presume that their beneficial interests in the property are equal if they are unable to show how much each contributed.
Appeal and error — Trial judge — Conclusions
19. Conclusions of trial judge upon question of veracity of witnesses are entitled to considerable weight on appeal.
See Note, 135 A.L.R. 232
54 Am. Jur. 162
65 C.J., Trusts, § 229
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
John D. Galey, of Sweet Home (Galey & Galey, of Sweet Home, and Phelps & Burdick, of Portland, on brief), for appellants.
Joseph H. Page and W.Y. Masters, both of Portland, for respondents.
Before LUSK, Acting Chief Justice, and BELT, BAILEY, HAY and WINSLOW, Justices.
Action in forcible detainer by Mary B. Hughes against John Helzer for the restitution of possession of realty; and suit in equity by John B. Helzer against Mary B. Hughes and Charles Hughes to establish and enforce as beneficiary an implied trust in respect of title to realty; and a suit by Bernice L. Helzer against Mary B. Hughes and Charles Hughes to establish and enforce in favor of Bernice as beneficiary an implied trust in respect of title to realty. The causes were consolidated for hearing. From an adverse decree in case of John B. Helzer against Mary B. Hughes and husband, defendants appeal. From an adverse decree in case of Bernice L. Helzer against Mary B. Hughes and husband, defendants appeal, and from adverse judgment in forcible detainer case, Mary B. Hughes appeals.
No. 15178 — REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS.
No. 15180 — REVERSED.
No. 15179 — AFFIRMED.
This opinion is concerned with three separate causes, which, by virtue of stipulations between the parties, were consolidated for hearing both in the lower court and in this court. The first is an action in forcible detainer by Mary B. Hughes against John Helzer, for the restitution of possession of an acre of land in Multnomah County, which land is referred to in the evidence, and will be referred to herein, as Tract A. The second is a suit in equity by John B. Helzer (the same person as John Helzer, supra) against Mary B. Hughes, his former wife, and Charles Hughes, her present husband, to establish and enforce, in favor of the said John, as beneficiary, an implied trust in respect of title to an undivided one-half interest in two tracts of land in Multnomah County, the legal title to which is in the defendant Mary. This suit involves the above-mentioned Tract A and a tract of 1.432 acres, referred to in the evidence and herein as Tract B. The third is a suit by Bernice L. Helzer, a daughter of John and Mary, against Mary and Charles, to establish and enforce, in favor of the said Bernice, as beneficiary, an implied trust in respect of title to an undivided one-half interest in one-half acre of land in Multnomah County, the legal title to which is in the defendant Mary. This tract is referred to in the evidence and herein as Tract C. (As Charles's part in the two last-mentioned causes is relatively minor, we shall refer to Mary as if she were the sole defendant.)
John and Mary intermarried June 10, 1913. As husband and wife, they lived together for nearly thirty years. Sometime prior to 1939 (the date not being fixed by the evidence), Mary brought suit for divorce against John in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, but, notwithstanding the suit, they continued to live together and apparently effected a reconciliation. The suit was not dismissed, however, but was permitted to languish. On February 20, 1939, John and Mary became vendees under an executory contract of sale, by which they agreed to purchase Tracts A, B and C of Mrs. Ivy G. Starr for the sum of $1,952, payable $25 down and the remainder by installments of $25 a month, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transnational Insurance Company v. Rosenlund
... ... Hughes v. Helzer, 182 Or. 205, 224, 185 P.2d 537 (1947); Duniway v. Barton, 193 Or. 69, 78, 237 P.2d 930 ... ...
-
Albino v. Albino
... ... Evans v. Trude et al. and Champlin et al., 193 Or. 648, 658, 240 P.2d 940 (1952); Hughes v. Helzer, 182 Or. 205, 226, 185 P.2d 537 (1947); Davis v. Howard, 19 Or.App. 310, 527 P.2d 422 ... ...
-
Shields v. Villareal
... ... at 398, 263 P.2d 913, and the claim involves a matter of public concern. See Hughes v. Helzer, 182 Or. 205, 224, 185 P.2d 537 (1947). The clear and convincing standard is therefore ... ...
-
Brown v. Brown, P0103-42; A120468.
... ... Obbiso, 283 Or. 83, 87, 580 P.2d 1026 (1978) (quoting Hughes v. Helzer, 182 Or. 205, 224, 185 P.2d 537 (1947)). Where, as here, a declaratory judgment would ... ...