Polette v. Williams, 34508
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 34508,34508 |
| Citation | 496 S.W.2d 340 |
| Parties | Nellie POLETTE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Walter G. WILLIAMS, and Sharon Williams, his wife, Defendants-Respondents. . Louis District |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Earl R. Blackwell, Hillsboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Dearing, Richeson, Roberts & Wegmann, Hillsboro, for defendants-respondents.
This is the second appeal in this case, the first having been been decided in Division No. 2 of the Supreme Court of Missouri and reported at 456 S.W.2d 328 resulted in a reversal and remand because of the absence of a necessary party, Wanda Thurman, who has been joined in this present proceeding in a party-plaintiff-appellant. On the retrial it was stipulated by the parties that the cause would be submitted to the trial judge on the entire record of the first trial plus additional testimony of a witness offered by the plaintiffs-appellants to establish the value of the tract of land involved herein. The trial court, after having taken the matter under submission, entered judgment for the defendants-respondents and this second appeal followed.
The single issue presented to this court for review is that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendants-respondents on the grounds that the evidence clearly and conclusively showed that the defendant Walter G. Williams had unquestionably breached the provision contained in a deed, thereby effectuating the reverter clause contained in said deed to the partial benefit of the plaintiffs-appellants.
The facts in this appeal are the same as those set out in the appeal previously presented to the Supreme Court and set out in 456 S.W.2d l.c. 329--330; except as necessary here we shall not reiterate them since those interested in the factual disputes may refer to the report of the earlier appeal, and the only additional evidence does not affect the outcome here.
Defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs-appellants' (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c), V.A.M.R., on the ground that appellants' brief does not present a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination but rather constitutes instead an argument de hors the issues framed by the pleadings and the evidence relative thereto. This motion was taken with the case, and although it has some merit in it, we have chosen to deny the motion and dispose of this appeal on the merits.
Appellants commenced this action by filing a petition in the trial court seeking to set aside a deed. The appellants, all sisters, sued the respondents, a brother and his wife, alleging that they, together with their brother, Walter G. Williams, were the lawful heirs of Lillie May Williams who died intestate on the '_ _ day of March, 1964'; that on or about the 10th day of October, 1953, Lillie May Williams and Alfred G. Williams, her husband (who had predeceased her in 1962) conveyed the tract of land described therein to Walter G. Williams; that the consideration for the conveyance was that Walter G. Williams 'bound and obligated himself to provide a suitable home for the grantors, as long as they both lived, with all the necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, luxuries, medical and hospital attention, drugs and any other items necessary to the comfort and maintenance of grantors;' that if the grantee failed to fully and faithfully comply with this provision in the deed, and by reason thereof the premises reverted to the estate of the late Lillie May Williams for the benefit of appellants; and that for the aforesaid reasons the deed should be set aside and annulled. The appellants asked the court to enter a decree setting aside, annulling and voiding the deed. This petition was subsequently amended excluding from the paragraph describing the tract of land in issue a tract set out in the aforesaid amendment.
Respondents filed their answer admitting their residency in Jefferson County, Missouri, and the allegations with reference to the death of Lillie May Williams, her heirs at law, and the conveyance of the tract of land from Lillie May Williams and Alfred G. Williams, her husband, who died in 1962; they then denied the remaining allegations of the petition and raised the issue that Wanda Thurman was a necessary party to the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. K.T.I., Inc.
...action testing the right to possession of real property. Polette v. Williams, 456 S.W.2d 328 (Mo.1970), appeal after remand, 496 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1973); City of St. Charles v. DeSherlia, 303 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.1957), transferred to 308 S.W.2d 456 (Mo.App.1957). By statute, an action for the re......
-
City of St. Louis v. Boos
...Rule 73.01(d) V.A.M.R.; Carroll v. Hahn, 498 S.W.2d 602 (Mo.App.1973); Doyle v. Doyle, 497 S.W.2d 846 (Mo.App.1973); Polette v. Williams, 496 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1973). Since this case concerns alleged city ordinance violations, it is incumbent upon the City to prove defendant's guilt beyond......
-
Nieves v. Pitterson, Civil No. 1980/308
...where the evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. The burden rests on the party seeking to have the deed cancelled. Polette v. Williams, 496 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. 1973). Likewise, equity will not set aside a voluntary conveyance except in cases of fraud, actual or constructive. Wood v. LeGoff, ......