Sanders v. Forcum-Lannom, Inc.
| Citation | 225 Tenn. 637,3 Pack 637,475 S.W.2d 172 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | INC,FORCUM-LANNO |
| Parties | , 225 Tenn. 637 Mrs. W. L. SANDERS, Administratrix of the Estate of W. L. Sanders, Deceased, Appellee, v., Appellant. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
MacFarland, Colley, Blank & Jack, Columbia, for appellee.
Ashley, Ashley & Lawson, Dyersburg, for appellant.
The instant case involves a discretionary appeal from the Chancery Court of Dyer County. Grooms Herron, Chancellor, sitting by interchange, overruled appellant's demurrer to the bill and granted a discretionary appeal to this Court.
In this opinion the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court; that is, Mrs. W. L. Sanders, Administratrix of the Estate of W. L. Sanders, deceased, as complainant, and Forcum-Lannom, Inc., as defendant.
In the original bill complainant seeks to have a constructive trust imposed on the proceeds of a life insurance policy paid to defendant as beneficiary under the policy. The policy was issued on the life of W. L. Sanders, the decedent.
Complainant avers that prior to his death W. L. Sanders operated a proprietorship under the name of Sanders Plumbing and Electric Company; that in the operation of the business 'W. L. Sanders had from time to time performed work under sub-contract arrangements with the defendant'; that on January 27, 1966, defendant was considering entering into a contract for the construction of certain additions to a hospital in Dyersburg, Tennessee; that at defendant's request, W. L. Sanders applied for and was issued a policy of term life insurance by the Life and Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee; that the amount of insurance coverage provided under this policy was $100,000.00; that the decedent was the 'insured and/or premium payer' under the policy; and that defendant was the beneficiary under the policy.
Complainant further avers that W. L. Sanders died on August 3, 1967; that after the death of W. L. Sanders, complainant, with the permission of the County Court of Maury County, continued to operate the proprietorship for the sole purpose of completing performance of all contracts of the deceased; that the estate of W. L. Sanders did perform the contractual obligation with defendant without 'loss or shortage'; that the estate of the decedent 'did suffer a substantial loss as a result of the completion of the contract' with defendant; that on December 17, 1968, 'a final settlement and disbursal' was made on the contract between defendant and the decedent; that at this time complainant learned of the existence of the life insurance policy; and that the proceeds under the policy had been paid to defendant. Complainant alleges that defendant had no insurable interest other than that of assuring that its contract with deceased was performed without loss and that since defendant suffered no loss under the contract as result of the death of W. L. Sanders, then defendant should hold the proceeds of the policy as trustee for payment to the estate of the decedent.
Defendant demurred to the bill. The grounds of the demurrer are: (1) complainant is not entitled to any legal or equitable interest in the proceeds of the policy since the bill admits that defendant had an insurable interest in life of decedent, that decedent applied for and obtained the life insurance policy naming defendant as beneficiary, and that the insurance company paid the policy benefits to defendant upon the death of the named insured; (2) the bill shows on its face that the insurance policy was a contract to pay defendant a certain sum of money on the insured's death and that it was not a contract of indemnity for loss or an assignment to secure the performance of a contract; and (3) the bill fails to allege any legal or equitable rights or interest of complainant upon which a constructive trust could be impressed upon the proceeds of the policy.
The Chancellor was of the opinion that the demurrer was not well founded. He overruled the demurrer and granted a discretionary appeal to this Court pursuant to T.C.A. § 27--305.
The sole question in this case is whether or not the bill is sufficient as a matter of law to sustain an action to impress a constructive trust upon the proceeds of the life insurance policy in question.
In considering the propriety of the Chancellor's order overruling the demurrer we consider only the sufficiency of the averments as a matter of law to support the action. In Schneider v. Lazarov (1965) 216 Tenn. 1, 390 S.W.2d 197, we said:
'(1) To begin with, it is not our intention to, nor do we, pass upon the merits of this contest. We are concerned only with the sufficiency of the averments in the petition to sustain it as a matter of law and not as a matter of fact. It is well established as a part of the procedural law of this State that demurrers are not looked upon with favor and are sustained only when it clearly appears that averments and charges upon which the complaint rests are fatally defective in substance.
(2, 3) This Court must take the averments of the bill as true on review of the chancellor's decree overruling the demurrer.
It has been repeatedly held that by demurring the defendant confesses the truth of all properly pleaded facts as set forth in the complaint and relevant inferences of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins Subway, Inc. v. Jones
...or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy." Sanders v. Forcum-Lannom, Inc., 225 Tenn. 637, 475 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tenn.1972); accord Rowlett v. Guthrie, 867 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tenn.App.1993); Livesay v. Keaton, 611 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Te......
-
XL Sports, Ltd. v. $1,060,000 Plus Interest Traceable to Respondent, No. W2005-00689-COA-R3-CV (TN 1/26/2006)
...S.W.2d 1008, 1 A.L.R.2d 154; Central Bus Lines v. Hamilton Nat. Bank (1951) 34 Tenn.App. 480, 239 S.W.2d 583. Sanders v. Forcum-Lannom, Inc., 475 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tenn. 1972). Thus, our courts have imposed a constructive trust in the following types of 1) where a person procures the legal t......
-
In re Conservatorship of Brown, No. W2004-02825-COA-R3-CV (TN 8/5/2005)
...equity or in good conscience retain. Livesay v. Keaton, 611 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn. App. 1980). See also Sanders v. Forcum-Lannom, Inc., 225 Tenn. 637, 475 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tenn. 1972). Intersparex Leddin KG, 852 S.W.2d at 249. Additionally, as noted above, the Appellees had the burden of pr......
-
Intersparex Leddin KG v. Al-Haddad
...in equity or in good conscience retain. Livesay v. Keaton, 611 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn.App.1980). See also Sanders v. Forcum-Lannom, Inc., 225 Tenn. 637, 475 S.W.2d 172, 174 (1972). Here, the intervening complaint does not allege any such conduct by Intersparex and, as a matter of law, it fai......