Poe v. Poe
| Decision Date | 27 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 35116,35116 |
| Citation | 256 P.2d 153,208 Okla. 406 |
| Parties | POE et al. v. POE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A constructive trust may be established by parol evidence, but the law for the safety of titles requires that the proof should be of the most satisfactory and trustworthy kind. The onus of establishing a constructive trust rests upon him who seeks its enforcement, and before a court of equity will be warranted in making a decree therefor the evidence must be clear, unequivocal and decisive.
2. Although a simple avowal of acquisition for the use of another, whether made contemporaneously with or subsequent to the fact, will not of itself support an allegation of trust, yet it is equally well settled that if one can be induced to confide in the promise of another that he will hold in trust, or that he will so purchase for one or both, and is thus led to do what otherwise he would have forborne or to forbear what he contemplated to do in the acquisition of an estate whereby the promisor becomes the holder of the legal title, an attempted denial of the confidence is such a fraud as will operate to convert the purchaser into a trustee ex maleficio.
3. Record examined and held that plaintiff must meet the burden of proof required of him in establishing a trust relationship between the parties, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Hulsey & Hulsey, McAlester, for plaintiffs in error.
Bell & Tucker, McAlester, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in the trial court (defendant in error here) is the son of defendant M. M. Poe and the brother of defendant Colbert Poe. In his petition plaintiff alleged that he was the equitable owner and in possession of certain described real estate in Pittsburg County, subject to specified encumbrances; that the record fee simple title to the land was vested in defendants by virtue of a deed dated April 24, 1950, but in truth and in fact the said defendants merely held the record title in trust for plaintiff. It is further alleged that on said date plaintiff was to purchase the land from the former owners and his mother agreed to loan plaintiff the money to make the initial payment for the land and that defendants were to take the deed to the property as security for the loan to plaintiff to be paid on or about November 15, 1950, at which time plaintiff was to assume the purchase price mortgage on the property in the sum of $1,300, and defendants were to convey to the plaintiff; that relying upon representations of defendants, who were in confidential relationship with plaintiff, the plaintiff took possession of the property and made valuable, permanent improvements thereon. Plaintiff further pleads a timely tender of the sum due and offered to assume the existing mortgage, to which arrangement mortgagee had consented, but that defendants wrongfully fail and refuse to carry out said trust agreement. Plaintiff prayed judgment declaring him to be the owner and directing that defendants convey to plaintiff by warranty deed, subject to the encumbrances, and in event of failure of defendants to comply with said judgment that a sheriff's deed be ordered.
Defendants' answer contains general and specific denials, also allegations that they were the owners, as joint tenants, of the fee title, under a warranty deed, a copy of which was attached to the answer.
C. D. Hall, a resident of Arizona, was former owner of the involved farm lands. Through his authorized agent at McAlester the land was leased to plaintiff for the year 1950, at a cash rental of $200, which plaintiff paid. It was orally agreed that if plaintiff should elect to purchase the land prior to July 1, 1950, the purchase price was to be $2,500 but plaintiff would be given credit for his rental payment. Later Hall withdrew the property from his agent's listing and notified plaintiff that he himself would handle the transaction. Plaintiff advised that he desired to purchase and Hall wrote to plaintiff stating his price and terms. The offer was accepted by plaintiff in a reply letter and on April 24, 1950, Hall and his wife went to McAlester. There they met plaintiff and his mother, M. M. Poe, in the office of Hall's attorney.
The evidence is in conflict as to the representations and understandings of the parties on that occasion, but as a result of the conference Hall and wife executed a warranty deed to defendants as joint tenants. Defendant M. M. Poe paid Hall the sum of $1,000, and later defendants executed a note and mortgage on the property for $1,300, the balance of the agreed purchase price.
The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff, finding him to be the equitable owner and in possession of the property, subject to specified encumbrances, and further found that defendants held the legal title in trust for plaintiff, conditioned on plaintiff's payment to defendants of $1,000 with interest and taxes theretofore advanced by defendants. Defendants were ordered to execute and deliver to plaintiff their warranty deed to the premises subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Chastain
...Okl. 268, 205 P.2d 314, Nicklas v. Crowell, 205 Okl. 432, 238 P.2d 347, Gaines v. Gaines, 207 Okl. 619, 251 P.2d 1044, and Poe v. Poe, 208 Okl. 406, 256 P.2d 153, and argues that in each of the above cases this court, in construing similar transactions, held that constructive or resulting t......
-
Regal v. Riegel
...be clear, unequivocal, and decisive. See: Teuscher et al. v. Gragg (1929), 136 Okl. 129, 276 P. 753, 66 A.L.R. 143; Poe et al. v. Poe (1952), 208 Okl. 406, 256 P.2d 153; Peyton et al. v. McCaslin et al. (Okl.1966) 417 P.2d 316; Goodwin et ux. v. Beard (Okl.1967), 434 P.2d 192. And, in Barry......
- Lunceford v. Lunceford
-
Barry v. Frizzell, 39294
...such as to lead to but one conclusion, or as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust. * * *" See also Poe v. Poe, 208 Okl. 406, 256 P.2d 153, in which we considered the character of evidence required to establish a constructive trust. Therein we stated that a mere conf......