Miovsky v. Georgeoff
| Decision Date | 10 April 1936 |
| Citation | 200 N.E. 855 |
| Parties | MIOVSKY v. GEORGEOFF et al.* |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Tarpo Miovsky against Nick Georgeoff and others. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; D. H. Mudge, Judge.
Manuel M. Wiseman, and J. P. Streuber, both of Alton (J. F. Schlafly, Jr., of Alton, of counsel), for appellants.
Wesley Lueders, of Granite City, for appellee.
Appellee filed a bill in the circuit court of Madison county seeking to have certain real estate in Granite City impressed with a trust for his benefit, claiming that appellant Nick Georgeoff purchased it as his agent and appellants are obliged, under the agreement with appellee, to deed the property to him, subject to the payment of the sum specified in the bill. A decree was entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill and is here for review.
It appears from the allegations of the bill that appellee had owned the property; that some years previously the building was burned; and that appellee rebuilt on the premises at a cost of approximately $16,000, of which about $4,500 remained unpaid and subjected the property to mechanics' liens. These liens were foreclosed and the property sold. The Coudy Bros. Lumber Company purchased this property at the sale as trustee for all lien claimants. Later appellee entered into negotiations with Coudy Bros. for the repurchase of the property. W. C. Rainford, of Coudy Bros., told appellee that notwithstanding the fact that Coudy Bros. owned the property as trustee, the real owners were willing to reconvey the premises to him upon the payment of the amount of their claims, with interest and costs. The bill also charges that appellee went to appellant Nick Georgeoff and asked him to advance funds for the purpose of assisting in the repurchasing of the property, which he agreed to do. It is alleged in the bill that the amount necessary to redeem was approximately $5,300, but that the owners agreed to take $4,750 for the property. The bill charges that notwithstanding the agreement Nick Georgeoff purchased the property for himself, and that when appellee secured the services of another person, one Tom Otso, to purchase the property for him, he found that Georgeoff had purchased it for himself.
The answer of appellants denied all material allegations of the bill. A hearing was had before the chancellor and evidence offered in support of the contentions of the parties. The decree found that Rainford, after the issuance of a master's deed to the Coudy Bros. Lumber Company, acted as trustee for twelve lien claimants, and that he, on behalf of the owners, agreed with appellee that the latter might repurchase the premises and that the owners would reconvey upon the payment of the amount of the lien claims, with interest and costs; that appellee sought the assistance of Nick Georgeoff to advance the sum of $1,000 as first payment on the purchase price; and that Georgeoff agreed to advance the money necessary to purchase the property for appellee, the title to be taken in the name of Georgeoff. The decree also finds that because of long acquaintance appellee reposed confidence in Georgeoff; that Georgeoff consulted with appellee as to the amount of monthly payments appellee would make to him upon the purchase price and that appellee and Georgeoff disagreed; that appellee then advised Georgeoff not to proceed further with the transaction but appellee would secure financial aid elsewhere; and that Georgeoff advised appellee he would give up the matter and proceed not further. The decree also finds that on the next day after this conversation Rainford called upon Georgeoff, and the latter advised him of the disagreement with appellee and that he was no longer interested in advancing any funds to purchase the property for appellee, whereupon Rainford suggested that Georgeoff buy the property for himself, which the latter refused to do; that on the afternoon of that day one Henry Vangeluf, acting on behalf of Georgeoff, arranged for the purchase of the property for Georgeoff, and that this transaction was without the knowledge or consent of appellee. The chancellor also found that a few days thereafter Tom Otso agreed to advance appellee the money to purchase the property but that Georgeoff refused to reconvey the premises. The chancellor found that a fiduciary relation existed because of the agreement of Georgeoff to advance the funds to appellee to purchase the property, and that Georgeoff abused and betrayed that confidence and perpetrated a fraud on appellee by obtaining a deed to the property for himself. The decree finds that appellants hold the title as trustees for the benefit of appellee, and orders that it be conveyed to appellee on the payment of the sum of $4,750 and interest.
Appellants do not contend that the facts as to what occurred are different from those found by the chancellor, but they do contend that no confidential relation existed between the parties by reason of that fact, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial