Krauss v. Litman
Decision Date | 07 December 1949 |
Docket Number | 31. |
Citation | 69 A.2d 781,194 Md. 36 |
Parties | KRAUSS et al. v. LITMAN et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Harry Litman and Selma Litman brought suit against George W. Krauss and Mollye Krauss to impose a lien on defendants' realty for amount paid by plaintiffs to defendants under an unenforceable contract for purchase of the realty.
The Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, Joseph Sherbow, J rendered a decree for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Marbury, C.J., affirmed the decree, holding that evidence sustained the Circuit Court's finding that Mollye Krauss participated in the negotiations for the purchase of the realty and accepted the benefits so as to make defendants trustees holding the realty in trust to repay amount paid to defendants by plaintiffs.
William Hoffenberg, Baltimore, for appellants.
Daniel Ellison, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellees.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This is the second time this case has been before us. In the first appeal, Krauss v. Litman, Md., 56 A.2d 37, the appellees (Litmans) had filed a bill for specific performance of a contract of purchase of the property in question. Mrs Krauss had not signed the agreement, and her husband, in signing it, was not alleged to have signed for her. We held therefore, that there was no contract which could be enforced under the Statute of Frauds against the wife, and that, as the property was held as tenants by the entireties, we could not enforce the husband's contract against that property. In view of the fact, however, that the appellees had advanced some $11,000 which was used in improvements on the property we felt that the case ought not to be disposed of on demurrer, and we remanded it in order that possible amendments might be made to the bill, and the Chancellor might have an opportunity to hear the whole case, on what might be alleged and what might be proved, and to determine whether the appellees had a lien upon the property for their advances.
The bill was amended and in the amended bill the relief prayed was that the agreement be rescinded and annulled, that the defendants (appellants here) be required to pay back all the money received as well as proper expenses and damages, and that the property be impressed with a lien or trust in favor of the Litmans to the extent of money due. Further allegations were made as to the participation by Mrs. Krauss in the making of the original arrangement, and as to her knowledge of the payments made by the Litmans and the acceptance of the corresponding benefits. The Chancellor upheld the contentions of the appellees, and directed the appellants to pay them the sum of $11,776.79 with interest from January 1, 1947, making said sum a lien upon the property in question, subordinate only to a mortgage, and directed a sale of the property unless settlement was made within 30 days from the date of the decree. The contract between the parties was rescinded. From this decree, this appeal comes here.
Some technical questions which we find are without merit were raised, but the chief question is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the holding that Mrs. Krauss participated in the negotiations and accepted the benefits. The facts are extraordinary. The Litmans went to the Krauss apartment, although they had never before known them, at about eleven o'clock one night during the latter part of July, 1946. The visit was made after a phone call in which Mr. Litman was told by Mr. Krauss that the house, 3212 Barrington Road, could possibly be bought. They entered into a discussion with respect to the house, then under construction by the appellants. A definite understanding was had at that time that the house and lot were to be sold to the appellees by the appellants at a price of $25,400 and a written contract was to be executed by the parties incorporating this understanding. Mr. Krauss says that he was the only one that had the understanding, and that his wife did not participate in the discussion as to the sale or price. His wife testified to the same effect, and said she was simply being sociable and entertaining for two people whom she had never before met, and who had come there to discuss the house. Shortly after the initial discussion $5000 was paid to Mr. Krauss by the appellees, and thereafter additional payments, totaling $6000 were made by them to him. Bills amounting to $216.35 for material going into the house were paid by appellees and bills amounting to $466 for similar materials were incurred by the appellees. Mrs. Krauss testified that she did not know, and was not aware, of the fact that the house had been sold to the Litmans, or that the $11,000 had been paid, until December, 1946, although she had not gone to see the house during the period from July. Mr. Litman testified that Mrs. Krauss said the house was to be almost exactly like her former home in Virginia, and that they were building it to live in. He also said that she said that the price suggested was a very reasonable one and that she told her husband 'Well, you are building it for us, it is you baby, if you want to do anything you want with it, it is perfectly all right with me.' The conference lasted until a quarter of one in the morning, and Mr. Krauss gave Mr. Litman a key to the property. Then from time to time, he asked for money and got it. Finally Mr. Litman refused to give any more money until the contract which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial