McDermott v. McDermott

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: WHEELER, C.J.
• Citation: 115 A. 638,97 Conn. 31
• Parties: McDERMOTT v. McDERMOTT.
• Decision Date: 30 November 1921

115 A. 638

97 Conn. 31

McDERMOTT
v.
McDERMOTT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 30, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Suit by Michael McDermott against Mary McDermott to compel defendant to cause an alleged undelivered deed of real estate owned by the plaintiff to be erased from the land records, and requiring the premises to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff, with appeal by defendant. No error.

Charles J. Martin, of New Haven, for appellant.

James D. Hart, of New Haven, for appellee.

WHEELER, C.J.

The defendant submits her appeal upon the single point as to whether or not the plaintiff, by his acts and conduct, ratified the act of the defendant in placing the deed on record of the premises which the plaintiff seeks, by this action, to have conveyed to him. The defendant's counsel rightly says that the corrections of the finding are not indispensable to the success of her claim of ratification, except the correction of paragraph 43, and all of the motion to correct may well be disregarded, as either not well taken or as immaterial, except as to this paragraph, and this we propose considering at a later stage of the case.

The finding relates that the plaintiff executed a [97 Conn. 33] deed of certain premises, made to the defendant as grantee, but never delivered the same, and placed it among his private papers in a bureau drawer and locked the drawer. Afterward, in September, 1919, plaintiff learned that the defendant had taken the deed and placed it on the land records, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. Immediately upon learning of this, the plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for the return of the deed; but defendant said she purposed holding this property. Prior to this time the plaintiff and defendant had been living together in these premises, and, upon defendant's refusal of plaintiff's demand, he moved from these premises, and has not since lived with the defendant. On October 3, 1919, the plaintiff caused a lis pendens to be placed on the land records, giving notice that he claimed title to the property. On October 23, 1919, he caused the present action to be instituted. In December, 1919, he filed his application in the superior court for the appointment of a receiver of the rents of the premises; but, at the suggestion of the court, a bond in lieu thereof was given by the defendant. On March 30, 1921, the plaintiff again brought his application for the appointment of a receiver for the rents, and on March 31, 1921, the court passed an order appointing such receiver. Since its institution the plaintiff has duly pressed this action clear up to the trial.

The defendant relies for her conclusion of ratification upon the acts and statements of the plaintiff in telling a painter who had presented a bill for work done prior to the taking of this deed by the defendant that he should collect it of the defendant as she was the owner of this property; in telling the savings bank, about October 29, 1919, to send its bill for interest which it had sent to the plaintiff, to the defendant; [97 Conn. 34] and in telling the water company, and an insurance firm, to send their bills to the defendant. The defendant subsequently paid each of these bills. The trial court also found, in paragraph 43, that- [115 A. 639]

" All of said statements aforesaid concerning the sending of the bills to defendant and the ownership of the property were made by plaintiff because defendant had recorded said deed and the premises stood in her name upon the record, and as she was in possession of said property and was receiving the full benefit thereof, the charges against the property should be paid by her. Plaintiff in making such statements did not intend to and did not in fact ratify, confirm, or adopt the act of defendant in taking said deed into her possession and recording the same, nor intend that title to said premises should be and remain in defendant."

The defendant assigns as error this finding that the plaintiff did...