Ingram v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 14 October 1955 |
| Citation | 283 S.W.2d 210 |
| Parties | John N. INGRAM et al., Appellants, v. Cyrus INGRAM, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Prince, Asher & Prince, Benton, for appellants.
Lovett & Lovett, Benton, for appellee.
This case is before us on a motion for an appeal from a judgment granting a partial summary judgment and an order of possession in favor of Cyrus Ingram, the plaintiff below, entered against John N. Ingram, his son, and Jeanett Ingram, his daughter-in-law, the defendants below. We are sustaining the motion for an appeal and reversing the judgment for reasons hereinafter stated.
Cyrus Ingram initiated this suit to set aside a deed in which he conveyed the property in question to John and Jeanett Ingram. He seeks to show undue influence, failure of consideration, and lack of mental capacity. John and Jeanett have been in continuous possession of the property since the date of the deed, October, 1951, and have made substantial improvements thereon. The deed contains a provision 'that the grantors herein are to retain possession of the property during their lifetime,' and a recitation that it was conveyed 'for * * * the further consideration that the * * * property is to remain in possession of the Grantors, and that they are to have full, and free use of same.' In July, 1952, John and Jeanett mortgaged the property, the instrument including a recitation that it was 'given subject to the life estate of Cyrus Ingram.'
On this appeal it is contended that (1) a partial summary judgment awarding 'at least a life estate' in the property to Dyrus was improper; (2) an order for immediate possession was erroneously granted to Cyrus; and (3) error was committed in overruling the motion to dismiss Cyrus' complaint.
There was no error in refusing to dismiss the complaint. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears to a certainty that the claimant is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Perry v. Creech Coal Co., D.C.Ky., 55 F.Supp. 998; Clay, CR, section 12.02(7); Moore's Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., section 12.08. See also Spencer v. Woods, Ky., 282 S.W.2d 851.
The 'partial' summary judgment awarding 'at least a life estate' to Cyrus was erroneous. A summary judgment should be granted only when no genuine issues of material fact exist, and a party is entitled to judgment on the law applicable to the facts as established. Watts v. Carrs Fork Coal Co., Ky., 275 S.W.2d 431; Moore's Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., section 56.02(10); Clay, CR, section 56.04(1). Cyrus points to the provisions in the deed which reserve an interest in the property for his lifetime, and to the recitation in the mortgage that it was subject to a life estate in Cyrus, and contends that these preclude any dispute concerning his ownership of at least a life estate. However, we cannot overlook the appellants' contention that the provisions in the deed were not intended to reserve a life estate in Cyrus. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chesser v. Louisville Country Club
...cause of action. In the absence of such an issue, the question becomes one of law and a summary judgment is properly awarded. Ingram v. Ingram, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 210; Puckett v. Elsner, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 250; Rowland v. Miller's Adm'r, Ky., 307 S.W.2d The defendant pleaded the adjudication of t......
-
Huie v. Jones
...could be proved in support of his claim. Clay, CR, 13.02, Comment 7; Perry v. Creech Coal Company, D.C.Ky., 55 F.Supp. 998; Ingram v. Ingram, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 210. Such motion is similar to the former general demurrer, in that the motion admits the well-pleaded facts but challenges the right......
-
Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Winfrey
...in this case was mutual mistake. Parol evidence is admissible on this issue even though it changes the terms of a writing. Ingram v. Ingram, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 210. That is the whole purpose of such proof. This requires us to examine the nature of proof required to vary the terms of a writing ......
-
Harlow v. Harlow
...that the plaintiff will not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which would be proven in support of the claim. Ingram v. Ingram, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 210 (1955). "Since the dominion of an owner over his property ends at his death, the law must provide for the devolution of that proper......
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2012 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...(Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2011). [69] Id. at 195-96. [70] Id. at 195. [71] 441 Fed.Appx. 310 (6th Cir. 2011). [72] Id. at 315. [73] Id. [74] Id. 283 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Ky. 1955); 145 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Ky. 1940); 177 S.W. 238, 238 (Ky. 1915); 132 S.W. 1035, 1036 (Ky. 1911)). [75] Id. [76] Id. at 317. [7......