Ratzman v. Ratzman

• Decision Date: 20 February 1929
• Docket Number: No. 18693.,18693.
• Citation: 165 N.E. 172,333 Ill. 461
• Parties: RATZMAN v. RATZMAN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

333 Ill. 461

165 N.E. 172

RATZMAN

v.RATZMAN et al.

No. 18693.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1929.

Commissioner's Opinion.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Hugo M. Friend, Judge.

Bill by Auguste A. Ratzman against Edwin W. Ratzman and Theresa Ratzman. Decree for complainant, and last named defendant brought error to Appellate Court, which transferred cause to Supreme Court, on the ground that a freehold was involved.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

See, also, 329 Ill. 650, 161 N. E. 117.

Otto W. Christopher, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Blech & Herson, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

CROW, C.

The proceeding out of which the questions now presented arose was commenced by Auguste A. Ratzman, defendant in error, against her son, Edwin W. Ratzman, and Theresa Ratzman, his wife, by bill in equity in the circuit court of Cook county. The cause was heard upon the bill, the answer of Edwin Ratzman, and the amended answer of Theresa Ratzman, by a master in chancery, to whom the cause was referred to take and report the evidence with his findings of fact and conclusions and to recommend a decree. Objections to the master's report were filed by Theresa Ratzman, and all overruled except the first, adn they were ordered to stand as exceptions. A decree was entered granting relief substantially as prayed in the bill. The record was taken by plaintiff in error, Theresa Ratzman, to the Appellate Court for the First District by writ of error. Upon suggestion that a freehold is involved, that court transferred the cause to this court.

The bill averred, in substance, that complainant, defendant in error here, on November 10, 1913, entered into a contract with Irwin Woodard and wife for the purchase from them of certain real estate described for the sum of $990, $400 of which was paid on delivery of the contract, the balance to be paid in installments of $50 or more per month, commencing December 1, 1913; that, on account of her advanced age and infirmity, her son, Edwin, who was residing with her and in whom she placed trust and confidence, prevailed upon her to make the contract in his name; that he stated to her that there were many matters to be done with reference to the purchase and consummation of the contract, such as payment of installments, taxes, etc.; that he influenced her to make the contract in his name and relieve herself from the burdens incident thereto; that she was influenced by his representations and consented to make the contract in his name; that she paid $400 in cash and $50 per month, as provided in the contract; that she gave her son all the money due under the contract to Woodard and wife, and the receipts were taken by him in his own name; that, when the purchase price was fully paid and a deed about to be delivered, he promised her that the title would be conveyed to her; that on November 6, 1914, he obtained a warranty deed, and she was informedthat the deed was in her name and the title conveyed to her, but she has since found that he obtained the title in his name and recorded the deed; that she has at all times been under the impression, and was led by him to believe, that she was the owner of record in fee simple, and, acting on that belief, she paid the original purchase price and all special assessments and general taxes with her own funds and money; that she has since discovered that she is not the owner of record of the premises, and that her son misrepresented and defrauded her by taking the title in his name instead of in her name; that he has since pretended to be the owner of the premises; that the deed to him is a cloud on her title, and should be declared null and void; that he should be decreed to be the holder of the title in trust for her benefit and to convey to her a good title free and clear of all incumbrances, and, upon his failure to so convey, that a master in chancery make the conveyance.

Edwin and Theresa Ratzman filed separate answers. Each specifically denied every material averment of the bill. He denied that complainant was under the impression that she was the owner of record in fee simple of the premises, or that he ever led her to believe that she was the owner, ‘but maintains, avers, and alleges that she at all times knew that the title to the premises was vested in him’; denied that he was holding the premises in trust for her, and denied that she was entitled to the relief prayed.

The answer of Theresa denied not only every fact averred in the bill, but denied every conclusion stated. She averred in her answer that in a divorce proceeding brought by her against Edwin he answered her bill with respect to property rights, and in his answer stated that he was the owner of the lot in question, and at the trial of the divorce proceeding testified, under oath, that he was the owner of the lot; that he and defendant in error, to deprive her of her marital rights, on May 11, 1918, executed and delivered a warranty deed conveying the property to Henry A. Matthews without a legal or valuable consideration; that on the same day Matthews executed and delivered to complainant and her son a warranty deed conveying to them the property as joint tenants; that complainant has been guilty of laches by her long delay in bringing and prosecuting her suit, and, with full knowledge of the facts and of her rights, failed to prosecute her claim until the lapse of 13 years. She denied that complainant was entitled to the relief prayed or to any relief.

Edwin Ratzman purchased the property in controversy from Woodard, and took the title in his name. The contract for the purchase was evidenced by a writing executed by him and Woodard and wife, dated November 10, 1913. The payments were made as the contract required. The receipts for payments were made to Edwin, except one to Auguste Ratzman. The general taxes were paid by her for the years 1919 to 1925. Special assessments were paid by her for a sidewalk in 1922 and for a paving system in 1925. The receipts show that other special assessments were paid by Edwin in 1916, 1917, and 1918. He and Theresa were married April 29, 1916. On May 11, 1918, he conveyed the property by warranty deed to Henry A. Matthews. On the same day Matthews conveyed it by warranty deed to Edwin and Auguste as joint tenants. Theresa did not join in the conveyance to Matthews. The bill was filed on April 8, 1926, 8 years after complainant became the owner of the property jointly with Edwin, and 12 years after the deed was delivered to him by Woodard.

As to all matters not of record, there is great conflict in the evidence. That the property in controversy was contracted to be sold to Edwin Ratzman is not disputed. Dooley, the agent with whom the sale was negotiated, testified that defendant in error talked with him about it. She made a deposit with him, to be applied on the purchase price, in 1913, but he did not recollect the month. The deposit was $25, and she asked him if it made any difference if the title was put in her son's name. He said that was all right. She paid the money, and the contract was signed. He did not see Edwin until after the contract was made, and did not discuss or negotiate the purchase with him. He saw Edwin at his office shortly after the contract with his mother had been signed. The second and third payments were made by Mrs. Gehn, Edwin's sister. Edwin made no payment to him.

Defendant in error testified that she paid $400 cash and got the contract in her son's name, and that she paid the balance in monthly installments of $50 each. It was her money, and the son made none of the payments. The deed was in her son's name, and she found that out when she could not sell the lot. She paid taxes in Edwin's name until 1919, when she had the clerk put the property...