Johnson v. Craig

• Decision Date: 20 September 1946
• Citation: 28 So.2d 696,158 Fla. 254
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CRAIG.

28 So.2d 696

158 Fla. 254

JOHNSON v. CRAIG.

Florida Supreme Court

September 20, 1946

On Rehearing en Banc Jan. 10, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Jos. S White, judge.

E. M Baynes, of West Palm Beach, and R. G. Hamilton, of Lake Worth, for appellant.

M. D Carmichael and Edwin T. Osteen, both of West Palm Beach, for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

Appeal brings for review decree of partition entered in a suit by one claiming an interest in certain real estate acquired in such manner as to create in the plaintiff and defendant a co-tenancy.

The testimony was taken before, and heard by, the Chancellor and was, in some degree, conflicting and, therefore, in reviewing the decree we must observe the rule stated in Nelson v. State ex rel. Quigg, Fla., 23 So.2d 136.

In the final decree the Chancellor said:

'Defendant takes the position that the transaction by which she acquired title to the real estate in question was solely between the former owner and defendant; that plaintiff contributed nothing to the purchase price thereof; and that there was no intention that plaintiff should have an interest in the lands. The escrow agreement, together with the circumstances of the purchase, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that the real estate was purchased upon the joint credit of both parties and that a resulting trust in plaintiff's favor should be declared to an undivided one-half interest therein. Restatement of Law of Trusts, Vol. 2, Sec. 456; Pomeroy's Eq.Juris. Vol. 4, (5th Ed.) page 77.

'Title was taken in defendant's name for convenience. Plaintiff had a wife living in Scotland, from whom he had been estranged for many years. It was planned to secure a loan from a lending agency by mortgage on the premises and to get plaintiff's wife to sign the mortgage would have been a difficult, if not an impossible, step.

'The statements subsequently given to the lending agency that plaintiff had no interest in the property, were made for the sole purpose of inducing the agency to accept the mortgage without the wife's signature. These statements do not operate as an estoppel in defendant's favor, because it has not been shown that defendant changed her position or acted in anywise to her prejudice in reliance thereon.'

We find that the conclusions reached by the Chancellor are amply supported by the record and that to the facts he applied the correct principles of law and equity.

So, the decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

CHAPMAN, C. J., and TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Jim Craig plaintiff in the court below, filed his bill for partition of certain property in Palm Beach County and sought to recover from Thelma D. Johnson, the defendant, the rents and profits thereof. The defendant, by her counterclaim sought to recover from plaintiff rent for his use and occupancy of the land. After trial the court entered its decree of partition on Januray 16, 1946, decreeing a resulting trust in favor of plaintiff and denying an accounting between the parties. Defendant appeals from this decree.

The facts are:

Jim Craig and Thelma Johnson were friends of mature years. Jim has a wife in Scotland of whom Thelma knew nothing. Jim came to West Palm Beach with one of a wifely 'status' which affair was terminated before he and Thelma became involved in the subject matter of this suit.

In the summer of 1936 Jim's friend Wells aroused Jim's interest in buying his lot at a price of $400 and building a house. Thelma was consulted and she agreed.

Thelma was the grantee in the deed. Thelma and Jim signed a note in February 1937 to Wells to secure advances by Wells of $2,041.75 for the construction of a house on the lot. This note was taken up and cancelled when an F.H.A. mortgage of $4,000 was made in the summer of $1937.

The friends of Jim who were carpenters, masons, painters, plumbers, etc., donated their services in the construction of the house. This donation, together with the borrowed money, the work of Jim and some funds of Thelma from the sale of a Georgia dwelling, bought the lot and built the house in dispute.

In the mortgage signed by Jim he disclaimed any interest in the property. Of record it had to be Thelma's transaction because of Jim's wife in Scotland from whom he had separated many years before. But as for Thelma it appears that she thought she was buying a lot for herself. This arrangement being subjected to the effect on the conduct of the parties of the understanding that Thelma and Jim would marry when Jim got his divorce.

Thelma advanced $600 toward the payment to Wells for his lot at a price of $400 and his construction loan of $2,041.75. She also made other payments.

From the day that Thelma was brought into this deal it was the understanding that the property was to be in her name. Credit on the property was obtained twice,...