Liefeld v. Coffin

• Decision Date: 30 July 1925
• Citation: 130 A. 576,103 Conn. 279
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LIEFELD v. COFFIN.

130 A. 576

103 Conn. 279

LIEFELD v. COFFIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1925

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1925.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.

Action by Gertrude E. Liefeld against Charles E. Coffin, executor. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

George E. Beers and Albert F. Welles, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Frederick L. Perry, of New Haven, for appellee.

CURTIS, J.

In her complaint the plaintiff alleged her claim as follows:

" First, a claim to the assets of the estate to the amount of $40,000, said $40,000 being funds placed in the hands of the deceased, Margaret K. Hanna, in part by the plaintiff and in part by her late mother, and mingled by the said Margaret K. Hanna with her own property; second, a claim for $40,000 for money advanced by the plaintiff and by her late mother to the deceased--both of said claims being presented in the right of the plaintiff as based upon transactions between the deceased and the plaintiff and upon the right of the plaintiff as succeeding to the mother's interest therein. The plaintiff succeeded to all of the assets of her said late mother, and is legally and beneficially entitled to the said claims and to the rights therein set up."

These claims were not materially changed by the more specific statements filed in response to motions. The defendant denied the allegations. The state referee heard the parties, their witnesses and counsel, and made a report of the subordinate and ultimate facts found.

It was uncontested on the hearing that Margaret K. Hanna, the defendant's testator, and Elizabeth Osgood, the plaintiff's mother, were sisters, and that the plaintiff was a daughter of Elizabeth, born April, 1875. In 1880 the husbands of both Margaret and Elizabeth died. Shortly thereafter Margaret and her two minor children, Elizabeth and her child, together with the mother of Margaret and Elizabeth, agreed to establish and maintain by mutual contributions a common home in New Haven under the management of Margaret. The children of Margaret died, one in 1883, one in 1905; the mother of Margaret and Elizabeth died in 1891. The survivors lived together in the common home until June 1903. The plaintiff, Gertrude, married in 1903, and with her husband and mother, Elizabeth, went abroad to live in Freiburg, Germany, thus bringing to an end the common home. Elizabeth died in New Haven, testate, in November, 1919, and her will was there probated.

By the terms of her will, dated November 16, 1908, all the personal effects, clothing and furniture, were given absolutely to her sister, Elizabeth Osgood, and the use of all other estate given to Elizabeth for and during her life, and upon the decease of Elizabeth the residue was given absolutely to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and Elizabeth K. Osgood was appointed executrix of her will, and excused from giving any bond as life tenant or executrix. June 4, 1910, Elizabeth K. Osgood having deceased, Margaret K. Hanna executed a codicil to her will and appointed the defendant, Coffin, executor in place of Elizabeth, deceased, republishing and confirming her will in all other respects.

The plaintiff sought to prove that during the years of common family life, the contributions of Elizabeth and the plaintiff had been, when coupled with the contributions of Margaret, in excess of the needs of the common home, and that their contributions were in excess of the contributions of Margaret, and had been retained by Margaret and constituted a fund in her possession as to which a constructive or implied trust attached in favor of Elizabeth and the plaintiff, and since Elizabeth's death, in favor of the plaintiff.

The finding of the referee based in a measure, because of the death of Elizabeth and Margaret and the age of the plaintiff during a part of the common life, upon inferences from facts involved in the way in which the common family life was conducted, disclosed that there were no such contributions in excess of the needs of the common home, and no funds or property of Elizabeth or Gertrude retained by Margaret, and hence that there was no fund in her possession as to which such a constructive or implied trust attached in the plaintiff's favor.

Upon the rendering of this report, the plaintiff remonstrated as follows:

" The plaintiff remonstrates as to the report of the state referee because it finds certain material facts without evidence and contrary to the evidence, viz.: (1) On page 19 that no facts existed upon which constructive trust could be predicated. (2) On page 23 that no fraud, actual or constructive, existed. (3) That the facts

...