Parks v. Dumas, 15979

• Decision Date: 13 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 15979,15979
• Citation: 321 S.W.2d 653
• Parties: James Clifford PARKS, Appellant, v. Jim DUMAS et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 653

321 S.W.2d 653

James Clifford PARKS, Appellant, v. Jim DUMAS et al., Appellees.

No. 15979.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Feb. 13, 1959.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1959.

Anderson, Latham & Castledine, and Steve Latham, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Howard L. Martin, Wichita Falls, for appellees.

RENFRO, Justice.

It was stipulated by the parties hereto that on February 16, 1957, the defendant, James Clifford Parks, willfully, voluntarily and unlawfully killed and murdered his parents, Luther E. and Eunice Parks, by shooting them with a gun. The defendant was convicted of the felony offense of murdering his mother, Eunice, and received a twenty year sentence in the penitentiary. He is now serving that sentence. Both parents died intestate.

This suit was filed for the purpose of imposing a constructive trust on the community estate of the parents of defendant. Plaintiffs were the brothers of Luther Parks (and, except for defendant, his sole surviving heirs) and the father and sister of Eunice Parks (her sole surviving heirs, except for defendant).

The court found that in equity a constructive trust should be imposed upon all the property belonging to the estates of Luther and Eunice Parks in favor of their lawful heirs, other than defendant, and judgment was entered for plaintiffs accordingly.

The defendant appealed.

The courts in the various states have reached different results as to whether a murderer can acquire and retain title to property as a result of his crime. Some hold the murderer takes and retains title to the property, others that he does not take title to the property, while others hold that the murderer takes title to the property, but holds it in constructive trust for the proper heirs. Garner v. Phillips, 229 N.C. 160, 47 S.E.2d 848; 16 Amer.Jur., p. 850, sec. 76. The courts which apply the constructive trust theory hold that the legal title passes to the murderer either by intestacy or by will, but that equity will treat him as constructive trustee of such property because of the unconscionable mode of its acquisition. See Baylor Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 94, and cases cited.

In 1912 the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals in Hill v. Noland, 149 S.W. 288, held that the fact that the wife had murdered her husband for the sole purpose of investing herself with the title of his property did not forfeit her right thereto. Defendant contends the above case should control in the instant appeal.

We do not agree. In Greer v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 148 Tex. 166, 221 S.W.2d 857, 859, the Supreme Court in referring to Hill v. Noland said: 'In that case, incidentally, the more modern view of imposing a constructive trust upon property inherited by a murderer from his victim, for the benefit of the heirs other than the murderer, was evidently not suggested or considered.'

In Pritchett v. Henry, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 546, 548, writ dis., the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals had before it the identical question we have in the instant case, namely: 'Whether * * * a person who willfully and unlawfully kills another may take title as an heir or legatee of his victim and retain it free of a constructive trust sought to be impressed upon such property by law for the benefit of the victim's heirs at law other than the killer?' The court held that the killer acquired legal title to the propery of his victim, but that the law imposed a constructive trust thereon for the heirs other than the killer.

In the above case the court cited with approval Scott on Trusts, Sec. 492, wherein the author states: 'Where the Statute of Wills and the Statute of Descent and Distribution make no provision as to the effect of murder of the decedent by the legatee or heir, the property passes under the will or by intestacy to him. It is then that the equitable principle as to unjust enrichment becomes applicable. * * * By imposing a constructive trust upon the murderer, the court is not making an exception to the provisions of the statutes, but is merely compelling a murderer to surrender the profits of his crime and thus preventing his unjust enrichment. * * * in order to deprive a murderer of the property it is not necessary to make an exception to the statute; all that is necessary is to apply the well-settled equitable principle under which a constructive trust is imposed upon one who acquires property through his own wrong.'

The Supreme Court in Pope v. Garrett, 147 Tex. 18, 211 S.W.2d 559, 561, said: 'The argument is often made that the imposition of a constructive trust * * * contravenes or circumvents the statute of descent and distribution, * * * or particularly a statute which prohibits the creation of a...