Nelson v. Nelson

• Citation: 51 A.2d 251
• Decision Date: 18 February 1947
• Docket Number: 148/229.
• Parties: NELSON v. NELSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

51 A.2d 251

NELSON

v.NELSON et al.

148/229.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Feb. 18, 1947.

Suit by Natalie B. Nelson against Harry W. Nelson and H. W. Nelson Company, Inc., to determine ownership of certain realty and the propriety of certain withdrawals from a bank account in complainant's name.

Decree advised for dismissal of bill.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The presumption of a gift or settlement which is predicated upon conveyances made to the wife at the instance of the husband may be demolished by definite,

trustworthy, and convincing proof of a contrary intention.

2. Intention is a mental application of one's thoughts toward some object to be attained in a certain manner.

Louis H. Roth, of Trenton (Richard J. Hughes, of Trenton, of counsel), for complainant.

J. Albert Homan, of Trenton (Charles Danzig, of Newark, of counsel, and Charles W. Kappes, Jr., of Union City, on the brief), for defendants.

JAYNE, Vice Chancellor.

Mr. and Mrs. Nelson, the adverse litigants in this cause, were married on December 16, 1915. Discord which may be regarded as unfortunate caused them to separate on September 14, 1944. I borrow the following characterizations of the parties from the lively briefs of counsel. Mr. Nelson is said to be ‘one habitually suspicious and alert,’ ‘he lacks nothing in the way of ability to guard and protect his own interests.’ His own counsel envision him ‘as a character at once open, candid, confiding and affectionate.’ Mrs. Nelson is portrayed as ‘highly critical, if not contemptuous, of her husband and his ability, and always she suspects the world at large to be attempting to cheat her and hers.’ Her counsel picture her as a ‘trusting, guileless soul.’ To me, both Mr. and Mrs. Nelson appeared to be refined persons, perhaps highly sensitive and impressionable.

The present suit implicates the ownership of six tracts of land situate in the Township of Hopewell, Mercer County, New Jersey, and the propriety of certain withdrawals made by Mr. Nelson in 1944 from a bank account in the Hopewell National Bank.

The transcript of the testimony adduced at the final hearing is voluminous, and the factual story underlying the issues in controversy cannot here be conveniently related in detail and at such consequential length.

Mr. Nelson is evidently an astute, judicious, and experienced business man who for many years has been a contractor engaged in the construction of railroads. Circumspection, foresight, and perspicacity are manifestly his natural or cultivated qualities. Although he, like many sagacious executives, has conducted his operations in a corporate disguise, yet he safeguarded his chartered control of the corporations against any possible rebellious acts of his co-directors by exacting from them letters of resignation effective at his will. This innate characteristic of his and the accordant policy accumulate influential significance in the consideration of his state of mind in the transactions to which this cause of action relates.

Long ago he ingratiated the hope that sometime he might acquire a country estate near Princeton, New Jersey. In 1927 or 1928 there came to his notice a farm property situate in the Township of Hopewell, Mercer County. The buildings including the residence were old and in disrepair. To Mrs. Nelson the property was unattractive in appearance, and she regarded her husband's project with disfavor. Mr. Nelson, however, envisaged the feasible adaptation of the farm to his aspirations. He purchased the farm in March 1928 and thereafter in 1930, 1932, 1938, 1943, and 1944, he acquired five additional tracts of land in the vicinity.

I am persuaded that Mr. Nelson paid the purchase prices of all of the six tracts of land either with his own funds or with the funds of H. W. Nelson Co., Inc. Initially the titles were taken either in the name of Henry W. Nelson or H. W. Nelson Co., or in the name of Mrs. Nelson. Eventually the record titles of all were placed in the name of Mrs. Nelson.

At a considerable cost the homestead was remodeled and enlarged and the property in general was refreshed. Although primarily organized as a residential and recreational country estate, Mr. Nelson has so supervised its management as to make it productive of some income.

Mrs. Nelson declares that the conveyances to her as grantee with the consent and at the direction of her husband constitute a gift or settlement. Such is the presumption, but it is not conclusive in effectiveness. It may be demolished by definite, trustworthy, and convincing proof of a contrary intention. Strong v. Strong, 134 N.J.Eq. 513, 36 A.2d 410, and authorities therein cited, affirmed 136 N.J.Eq. 103, 40 A.2d 548.

There is an indubitable circumstance pervading all of those transactions which seems to me to be insurmountable in determining the true contemporaneous intentions of the parties. That circumstance is that upon lodging ostensibly the titles to the several tracts in his wife, Mr. Nelson conformably with what seems to have been an inveterate course of conduct, caused her to sign, duly acknowledge, and...