Mannausa v. Mannausa, 17

• Decision Date: 02 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 17,17
• Citation: 374 Mich. 6,130 N.W.2d 900
• Parties: Earl MANNAUSA, Special Administrator of the Estate of Florence Mannausa, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William MANNAUSA and Clara Mannausa, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 900

130 N.W.2d 900

374 Mich. 6

Earl MANNAUSA, Special Administrator of the Estate of Florence Mannausa, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William MANNAUSA and Clara Mannausa, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 2, 1964.

Wilson & Wilson, River Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Gussin, Weinstein & Kroll, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

This case was previously before this Court and is reported in 370 Mich. 180, 121 N.W.2d 423.

A petition for rehearing was granted in part (as to High street property), such rehearing involving the question of impressing a trust on the proceeds of the sale of said property from and after such sale in 1952.

The record discloses that in 1945 Florence Mannausa, a widow, and her bachelor son, William Mannausa, purchased the High street property and took title to it 'as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.' At the time the son was living with the mother in her home.

Subsequently, the mother and son sold the High street property on land contract. The land contract vendee defaulted and the vendee's interest was transferred back to the sellers.

Thereafter, on October 3, 1952, the mother together with her sister, a complete stranger to the title, sold the property to one Gene Champion for $5,250. William Mannausa received nothing for his interest in the property. Florence Mannausa accepted the down payment and the payments on the contract and placed the moneys received from the sale in a Federal savings and loan association joint account with her sister. The land contract purchaser had at time of trial liquidated the entire balance due on the contract, except $512.93, which the purchaser is prepared to pay.

This Court finds that the mother sold the High street property at a time when she was but a joint tenant with right of survivorship and when she had no right so to do. See Ames v. Cheyne, 290 Mich. 215, 287 N.W. 439, and cases therein cited.

The rule of Ames was thoroughly analyzed and reaffirmed by this Court in Ballard v. Wilson, 364 Mich. 479, 483, 484, 110 N.W.2d 751, 753, 754:

'Hence arises our problem: The 3 grantees before us hold the property as 'joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common.' Does such a deed create a mere joint tenancy, or something more? * * *

'[I]t has been held repeatedly in a parallel situation, where a deed ran to 'A and B, and the survivor of them, his heirs and assigns,' that the intent of the grantor was to convey a moiety to A and B for life with remainder to the survivor in fee, and that neither grantee could convey the estate so as to cut off the remainder. Accordingly, and apparently upon parity of reasoning, we held in Ames v. Cheyne, supra [290 Mich. 218, 287 N.W. 439], that 'where property stands in the name of joint tenants with the right of survivorship, neither party may transfer the title to the premises and deprive the other of such right of survivorship' (citing the Schulz and Finch Cases [Schulz v. Brohl, 116 Mich. 603, 74 N.W. 1012; Finch v. Haynes, 144 Mich. 352, 107 N.W. 910 (115 Am.St.Rep. 447)] * * *) and concluded that 'plaintiff may not have partition.'

'We are not persuaded by appellee's arguments either that the decision in Ames v. Cheyne was erroneous or that it should be overruled. Moreover, our prior decision, in Mr. Justice Cooley's words, 'has become...