Ritter v. Quinn

• Decision Date: 05 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 46345,46345,1
• Citation: 521 P.2d 1403
• Parties: John W. RITTER, Sr., Appellee, v. Kathleen QUINN, Appellant
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1403

521 P.2d 1403

John W. RITTER, Sr., Appellee, v. Kathleen QUINN, Appellant.

No. 46345.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

March 5, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1974.

Certiorari Denied April 30, 1974.

Released for Publication by Order of Court of Appeals May 2, 1974.

Park, Nelson & Caywood, by Robert B. Park, Chickasha, for appellee.

Eugene P. Ledbetter, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

BOX, Presiding Judge:

Appeal from order of trial court denying appellant's motion for a new trial.

When this action was commenced on February 22, 1971, appellant Kathleen Quinn was the record owner of certain property jointly with her brother John W. Ritter, Jr. This property, described as

'The W1/2 of NW1/4 of NE1/4, and S1/2 of NE1/4 of NW1/2, and NW1/4 of NW1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 28, Township 5 North, Range 7 West, Grady County, Oklahoma, (41.46 acres, more or less) and The N1/2 of SW1/4, and S1/2 of NW1/4 of SE1/4, and W1/2 of SW1/4 of SE1/4 of Section 21, Township 5 North, Range 7 West, Grady County, Oklahoma, (111.10 acres, more or less) and The S1/2 of NE1/4 of NW1/4, and N1/2 of SE1/4 of NW1/4 of Section 29, Township 5 North, Range 7 West, Grady County, Oklahoma, (40 acres, more or less).

was conveyed to Mrs. Quinn and Mr. Ritter by John W. Ritter, Sr. by warranty deed on March 20, 1967. John W. Ritter, Sr., appellee, contended in his petition that at the time of his conveyance to Mrs. Quinn and Mr. Ritter, Jr. it was agreed by all of the parties that the property would be reconveyed to Mr. Ritter, Sr. on his demand.

The record revealed that demand had been made on both John W. Ritter, Jr. and Kathleen Quinn by John W. Ritter, Sr. for the property to be reconveyed. John W. Ritter, Jr. agreed to reconvey the property to his father, John W. Ritter, Sr. Mrs. Quinn refused to do so and this suit was brought to impose a trust and a reconveyance.

In the trial before the court, the evidence was conflicting concerning an agreement to reconvey the property. There was no controversy over the fact that the property was conveyed by Mr. Ritter, Sr. in order to attempt to place this property out of the reach of those who might sue him in the future. After all of the evidence and argument, the trial court found for the plaintiff, John W. Ritter, Sr. and ordered that Kathleen Quinn, defendant, reconvey the property in question to the plaintiff.

The first contention of the appellant on appeal is that 'there was no agreement by the defendant to reconvey the property to the plaintiff.' Appellant cites no authority for this proposition. The Supreme Court has said at page 905 of Marshall v. Amos, 471 P.2d 896 (1970),

'In Hitt v. Hitt, Okl., 258 P.2d 599, we held that it is for the trial court in a case of equitable cognizance to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimony.'

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as to an issue of fact, such as this.

The second proposition of the appellant is as follows:

'The property involved in this action was devised to the plaintiff in trust, with the use and all of the income going to the plaintiff during his lifetime, and at his death, the surface of the property was to go to defendant and John W. Ritter, Jr., and the minerals divided among all four Ritter children.'

Appellant contends that the various letters of John W. Ritter, Sr., which indicate a wish on his part to carry out the wishes of his deceased wife, constitute a trust. This also is a matter on which the evidence was in conflict at the trial court. We find no error in the ruling of the trial court in this regard.

The...