Meeks v. Meeks

• Decision Date: 18 May 1944
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 755.
• Citation: 245 Ala. 559,18 So.2d 260
• Parties: MEEKS v. MEEKS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

18 So.2d 260

245 Ala. 559

MEEKS v. MEEKS.

7 Div. 755.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 18, 1944

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; W. M. Rayburn Judge.

The deed referred to in the opinion is as follows:

"The State of Alabama, The County of Etowah:

This indenture made this the 22 day of April 1936 between Annie L Meeks and husband, Charles E. Meeks, J. L. Meeks and wife Lois Meeks, Herbert Meeks and wife, Addie B. Meeks, Warren Meeks and wife, Dorma Dot Meeks, Mary Nell McGlathery Harrison and husband, D. L. Harris, Jr. and Joseph McGlathery an unmarried man, parties of the first part and Marion Meeks Dean, party of the second part.

Witnesseth: That the parties of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) dollars in cash and other good and valuable considerations to them in hand paid by the party of the second part the receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, bargain sell and convey unto the party of the second part, the following described real estate, towit:

A tract or parcel of land described as beginning at the intersection of the northwest line of Fourth Street with the northeast line of Chestnut Street, said point being also what is commonly called the southeast corner of Lot number 166 of the Original survey of the City of Gadsden and from thence running in a northeasterly direction along the northwest side of Fourth Street a distance of 50 feet, thence in a northwesterly direction and parallel with the northeast side of Chestnut Street a distance of 75 feet, thence in a southwesterly direction and parallel with the northwest side of Fourth Street a distance of 50 feet to Chestnut Street, thence in a southeasterly direction along the northeast side of Chestnut Street a distance of 75 feet to the point of beginning, said description embracing a portion of Lot Number 166 of the Original Survey of the City of Gadsden, and being and lying in the City of Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, together with all improvements located thereon.

To have and to hold to the said Marion Meeks Dean, her heirs and assigns forever.

And the parties of the first part will forever warrant and defend the title to the same to the party of the second part, and to her representatives and assigns, from every lawful claim whatever.

In testimony whereof the parties of the first part have signed and sealed these presents on the date above written.

Annie L. Meeks (LS)

Charles E. Meeks (LS)

J. L. Meeks (LS)

Lois Meeks (LS)

Herbert Meeks (LS)

Addie B. Meeks (LS)

Warren Meeks (LS)

Dorma Dot Meeks (LS)

Mary Nell McGlathery Harrison (LS)

D. L. Harrison, Jr. (LS)

Joseph McGlathery (LS)."

The following are letters written by appellee to the husband of appellant:

"Oct 9 1939

Dear Leonard: I am sorry I did not get to see you while you were in Gadsden, it seems that every one else did, quite a few people said you come to see them. I wrote you sometime ago asking you if we could make a trade for the hillside farm. But have not as yet heard from you. I understand that you offered to sell all the remaining property to Mr. Snead. I suppose it was the remainder of the Meeks Estate property. What kind of a deal did you offer him. What price will you make me on the balance of the property. I am very interested in buying it. Hope you continue to improve. Let me hear from you at once.

Love to all

Cleveland"

WCM

---

FM

"Gadsden, Ala. Feb. 8 - 1940

Dear Leonard: Was very glad you called, enjoyed talking to you, sorry you are feeling so badly. Have been feeling awfully bad myself, but have kept up. I have a party here that wants to trade for the Turrentine Ave house. He has a house on a 75 ft lot in new addition in East Gadsden, that rents for $40.00. He values it at $5000. If I can trade with him and can get a loan on the house, I will take it over and make a clean sale for you. I still want to buy the balance of the Estate from you. The party I was to get my money from has been sick and has been in Florida, but I think I can still make it. Give me your best price on it. I think I can do some trading with it and still be able to hold part of it. And at the same time help you get rid of it. Hope this finds you feeling better. I will try to get over to see you when the weather clears up.

Love to all

W.C."

WCM

---

FM

Hood, Inzer, Martin & Suttle, of Gadsden, for appellant.

Roy D. McCord and Motley & Motley, all of Gadsden, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

The suit is in equity to sell the lands of tenants in common for division. The original bill was filed July 1, 1941.

On January 15, 1943, appellee W. Cleveland Meeks filed an amended bill in which it was averred in substance that: (a) appellee was a son of W. M. and Mary J. Meeks, both deceased, who owned considerable real estate and who died several years before 1927, leaving five children, and grandchildren of one child, which divided their estate into six parts; and that appellee, as one of said children, inherited an undivided one-sixth interest in the property of said Meeks; (b) on January 12, 1927, appellee had become involved in debt in an amount greatly less than the true value of his interest in said estate; that it was agreed between appellee and J. L. Meeks, one of the five children, that appellee should make a deed to said Meeks, conveying all of his interest in his father's estate, the latter to handle and use the same for the purpose of settling with the other heirs, in paying the debts of appellee, saving and preserving appellee's interest in said estate, and after said estate had been settled and appellee's obligations paid out of said estate, said J. L. Meeks was to deed back to appellee the remaining interest he had in said estate. The deed was made on January 12, 1927, and duly filed for record. The consideration named was $20,000 and other valuable considerations. It is further averred that the $20,000 was never paid and the other valuable considerations consisted of the settlement of said estate by J. L. Meeks and the conveyance back to appellee of his remaining interest in said properties; that said deed was never actually delivered to said J. L. Meeks, but remained at all times in possession of appellee, save the period of time it was lodged with the judge of probate to be recorded in the office of the judge of probate. (c) After said January 12, 1927, J. L. Meeks managed said property, sold, mortgaged or conveyed certain portions thereof and out of the proceeds of said sale settled with three of the heirs of said estate; that the debts of appellee were paid and his interest preserved in said properties indicated in the pleading. (d) The said J. L. Meeks acknowledged the agreement he had made with appellee, on January 12, 1927, and that during the month of April, 1939, made, executed and delivered to appellee an instrument in writing, signed by J. L. Meeks and witnessed by Charles E. Meeks, Sr., in which the said J. L. Meeks agreed to deed to appellee a one-third interest in the remainder of said property after settlement of said estate of W. M. Meeks.

The amended bill also avers that by said written instrument a trust was created under Title 47, § 149, Code 1940, for appellee. It is further averred that said instrument has been lost or destroyed, and that (e) J. L. Meeks (the husband of appellant) died on March 21, 1941; that said property was in possession of his widow, appellant here, who on demand failed and refused to acknowledge said trust, and to make a deed to appellee of the one-third interest in the remaining property of the said W. M. Meeks; that appellant-respondent in the bill and as amended was claiming said property free from any trust, and that at the time appellant took possession, or claimed ownership of said property as hers, she had knowledge of the trust in said lands belonging to appellee.

Appellant demurred to the bill as last amended, some of the grounds of demurrer raising the questions, that (1) appellee was not a tenant-in-common with appellant; appellee was undertaking to enforce an alleged oral trust in lands; (3) appellee was estopped from questioning the validity of the deed made by him to J. L. Meeks; (4) it appeared from his pleading that appellee had been guilty of laches in asserting his interest in said properties; and that (5) the bill, as last amended, was without equity.

The trial court overruled the demurrer and put appellant to her answer, the final decree being in favor of appellee for one-third interest in the properties, and directing a sale of the lands in question for division among the joint owners.

Laches is insisted upon in demurrer and by the facts because appellee waited some fourteen and one-half years, after the execution of said deed of January 12, 1927; three and one-half or four months subsequent to the death of said J. L. Meeks (the brother of appellee and husband of grantor of appellant), and more than five years subsequent to the division of said estate of W. M. Meeks amongst the several heirs, and to the day appellant had advertised the properties in question for sale, before filing his original bill in this case on July 1, 1941. The rule of laches is well understood, need not be repeated and was lately applied in Thompson v. Suttle, 244 Ala. 687, 15 So.2d 590.

The distinction between constructive and resulting trusts in lands is stated in our decisions. Lenoir v. Burns, 223 Ala. 101, 134 So. 485; Gandy v. Hagler, Ala.Sup., 16 So.2d 305; Haney v. Legg, 129 Ala. 619, 30 So. 34, 87 Am.St.Rep. 81; De Freese v. Vanderford, 220 Ala. 360, 125 So. 228.

In Rudulph v. Burgin, 219 Ala. 461, 122 So. 432, 434 Mr. Justice Sayre, speaking for the court, observed: "'* * * The trust arises by operation of law, and may be...