Laflamme v. Hoffman
Decision Date | 17 March 1953 |
Citation | 95 A.2d 802 |
Parties | LAFLAMME v. HOFFMAN. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Connolly & Cooper and Clifford E. McGlauflin, Portland, for plaintiff.
Agger & Goffin, Portland, for defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY, and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
On exceptions. This was a real action brought to recover a parcel of real estate situate in Portland in our County of Cumberland, of which the plaintiff claims the defendant had disseized him. The declaration in the action is in proper form and alleges that the plaintiff, within twenty years last past, was seized of the premises in question in fee simple. The writ was returnable to, and entered in the Superior Court in the County of Cumberland at the May 1952 Term thereof. At the June Term, by agreement of the parties, the case was referred under rule of court, with right of exceptions as to matters of law reserved. In vacation, and prior to the issuance of the rule, the defendant pleaded the general issue null disseizin, with the following brief statement:
'That there is a lease running to the plaintiff & his heirs, which is a valid & existing lease.'
At the hearing before the referee the defendant sought to justify his possession of the premises (to which the plaintiff had legal title) under the instrument hereinafter set forth, together with the fact that he had been let into possession of the premises by the plaintiff and, as he claimed, had constructed a house thereon. The instrument just referred to is as follows:
'Memorandum of Agreement.
'By and Between Alphonse Laflamme of Portland in the County of Cumberland and State of Maine and Clifford Hoffman of said Portland.
'The said Alphonse Laflamme hereby agrees to give to the said Clifford Hoffman the right to use, occupy, build and maintain a home on land on Campbell Road in said Portland which was purchased by the said Laflamme of the Chas. F. Grant Estate on Jan. 19, 1949, consisting of fourteen (14) acres of land more or less. This agreement to hold during the natural life of the said Clifford Hoffman. In case of the death of the said Alphonse Laflamme proper provisions will be made in his will and testament for the continuance of this agreement.
'In case of the death of the said Clifford Hoffman the said Alphonse Laflamme hereby agrees to make proper adjustment for any cash that the said Hoffman may have expended in connection with the property or he will continue right of possession to the heirs of the said Clifford Hoffman.
'Dated at Portland this twenty fourth day of January A. D. 1949.
'Signed in the presence of
Perley C. Dresser
Alphonse Laflamme'
The referee found that after the defendant came into possession of the premises, which was at some time in the year 1949, the plaintiff and the defendant
The referee held 'The instrument clearly means that a life estate was by it given and that the life estate was 'to hold during the natural life' of the defendant.' The referee further stated: 'Whether it is a gift in praesenti, as we interpret and construe it, or whether it is only a promise to convey, the authorities deem it sufficient basis for equitable estoppel under the requinite circumstances.' The referee made the further finding: The referee reported in favor of the defendant. These findings by the referee are challenged by the objections and exceptions to acceptance of the report. It is upon these exceptions that the case is before us.
In this case the defendant seeks to justify his possession under a parol gift of a life estate in land, the legal title to which is in the plaintiff. A life estate being an estate in freehold cannot be transferred or created by parol. Calkins v. Pierce, 112 Me. 474, 476, 92 A. 529. A writing not under seal lies in parol. A written parol transfer of a freehold estate in land is as ineffective to pass legal title as an oral one. Under some circumstances parol transfers of land will be enforced in equity.
As a general rule, equity will not lend its aid to perfect a defective gift. Brown v. Crafts, 98 Me. 40, 47, 56 A. 213; Norway Savings Bank v. Merriam, 88 Me. 146, 151, 33 A. 840; Bath Savings Institution v. Hathorn, 88 Me. 122, 126, 127, 33 A. 836, 32 L.R.A. 377; Strout, Adm'r. v. Burgess, 144 Me. 263, 287, 68 A.2d 241, 12 A.L.R.2d 939.
There is, however, an exception to this general rule which is and has been recognized by this Court. In a case which turned upon whether or not an oral parol gift of real estate, possession of which had been delivered by the donor to the donee who had made improvements thereon, was enforcible in equity, Bigelow v. Bigelow, 95 Me. 17, 23, 49 A. 49, 51, this Court speaking through Wiswell, C.J., said:
(Emphasis ours.)
The referee was aware of this case and in his findings disposed of it as follows:
Contrary to the intimation by the referee, Bigelow v. Bigelow was not a hasty, illconsidered opinion by this Court. The case had been before the Court once before, Bigelow v. Bigelow, 93 Me. 439, 45 A. 513. In that opinion by Wiswell, J., concurred in by Peters, C. J., Haskell, Strout and Savage, JJ., the Court denied the validity of the parol gift on the ground that it was voluntary and that there was no consideration therefor. In a new trial the Justice at nisi prius ordered a verdict which in effect denied the validity of the gift. When...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zamore v. Whitten
...the forbearance or the performance as the case may be is, in the legal sense, at the request of the promisor. See LaFlamme v. Hoffman, 148 Me. 444, 95 A.2d 802 (1953); Shaw v. Philbrick, 129 Me. 259, 151 A. 423 The Justice below committed no error in ordering the entry of judgment for the d......
-
Estate v. MMG Ins. Co.
...has the right to possession and enjoyment of property concurrent with the remainderman's vested estate); see also LaFlamme v. Hoffman , 148 Me. 444, 447, 95 A.2d 802 (1953) ("[T]he life estate was to hold during the natural life of the [life tenant]." (quotation marks omitted) ); Ramsdell v......
-
Tozier v. Tozier
...we have heretofore never squarely been called upon to decide the issue involving a gift as opposed to a contract. See LaFlamme v. Hoffman, 148 Me. 444, 95 A.2d 802 (1953); Bigelow v. Bigelow, 95 Me. 17, 49 A. 49 (1901); Bigelow v. Bigelow, 93 Me. 439, 45 A. 513 (1900); Woodbury v. Gardner, ......
-
Kurlanski v. Falmouth
...contract must be legal, Lehigh v, Pittston Co., 456 A.2d 355, 361 (Me. 1983), and there must be consideration. Laflamme v. Hoffman, 148 Me. 444, 450, 95 A.2d 802, 805 (1953). While it is clear that the parties did reach some form of agreement, the question is whether their mutual understand......