Sanford v. Van Pelt

• Decision Date: 12 April 1926
• Docket Number: 25146
• Citation: 282 S.W. 1022,314 Mo. 175
• Parties: GRADY SANFORD and F. M. McDAVID, Executors of Estate of W. B. SANFORD, Appellants, v. E. F. VAN PELT et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

282 S.W. 1022

314 Mo. 175

GRADY SANFORD and F. M. McDAVID, Executors of Estate of W. B. SANFORD, Appellants, v. E. F. VAN PELT et al

No. 25146

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 12, 1926

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; Hon. Orin Patterson Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

John T. Sturgis for appellant.

(1) While express trusts can only be proven by writing, the deed from Sanford to "T. B. Holland, trustee" and reciting a mere nominal consideration is a sufficient writing to evidence that Holland did not take or hold the property as a purchaser or owner, but as trustee for a third party. That the property was so held in trust is proven by the written conveyance to Holland, trustee, and it would be competent to prove by parole evidence the nature of the trust and the beneficiaries of same. The fact of the trust and not its terms or the beneficiaries is what must be shown by writing and that is accomplished by the use of the word "trustee" after the name of the grantee in this deed of gift. Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. Durant, 95 U.S. 576; Johnson v. Colnan, 19 Colo. 168; H. B Claflin & Co. v. King, 48 So. 36; Flitchcroft v. Trust Co., 60 A. 557; Erskine v. Russell, 96 P. 250; Mahrburg v. Ehlen, 19 A. 648; Farmers Loan & Tr. Co. v. Essex, 71 P. 270; Farrington v. Stuckey, 165 F. 325; Snyder v. Collier, 123 N.W. 1075; Mercantile Natl. Bank v. Parsons, 155 N.W. 826. (2) Where the trust attempted to be created failed for uncertainty or the particular trust is so indefinite and uncertain that it cannot be enforced or carried into effect, or lapses or is illegal, the law does not permit the trustee to retain the property as his own free from the trust, but a trust, arises by operation of law in favor of the grantor or his heirs and legal representatives. This is especially true when the failure of the trust is brought about by the repudiation of the trust relation by the grantee and his refusal to carry out any trust in relation to the property. Johnson v. Colnan, 34 P. 905; 3 Pomeroy's Equity, secs. 1032 and 1009, note 2; 26 R. C. L. 1216; 39 Cyc. 109, 110; Sims v. Sims, 64 Am. St. 772; Saylor v. Plain, 31 Md. 158; Holland v. Allcock, 2 Am. St. 422; Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 211; Heidenmeyer v. Bauman, 84 Tex. 174; Easum v. Bohn, 180 Ky. 451; McHugh v. McCole, 40 L. R. A. 724; School Land Com. v. Wadhams, 20 Ore. 274; Williams v. Com. Baptist Church, 92 Md. 497; 27 Cyc. 862; Keane v. Beard, 11 Mo.App. 10. (3) While it is necessary in applying the doctrine that where the trust fails for any cause or is void for uncertainty or cannot be enforced, a resulting trust arises in favor of the grantor or donor, that the instrument attempting to create the trust must show that the grantee did not take same as owner or as having a beneficial interest, that is done by the use of the word trustee after grantee's name. The word "trustee" following the name of the grantee in a deed is not descriptio personae, but means and shows that such grantee takes the title in trust for some third person and not as owner or for his own benefit. One accepting a deed as trustee cannot deny the trust relationship and assert title in himself. Union Pac. Railroad v. Durant, 95 U.S. 576; Johnson v. Calman, 34 P. 908; H. B. Claflin & Co. v. King, 48 So. 36; Geyser Gold Mining Co. v. Stark, 106 F. 558; Sternfels v. Watson, 139 F. 507; Farmers Loan Co. v. Essex, 71 P. 270; Farrington v. Stucky, 165 F. 328; Snyder v. Collier, 123 N.W. 1023; Moffet v. Oregon Railroad, 91 P. 489; Welles v. Larabee, 36 F. 860. (4) That T. B. Holland was not a purchaser for value is shown (in addition to the word "trustee" after his name) by the form of the conveyance and the recited consideration of one dollar. One dollar is a mere nominal consideration, and imports that nothing of value was paid. Strong v. Whybank, 204 Mo. 341; Johnson v. Calman, 19 Colo. 168; 3 Pomeroy's Equity, sec. 1035; Edmonds v. Scharff, 279 Mo. 78; Scharff v. McGaugh, 205 Mo. 344.

Mann & Mann for respondents.

(1) Assuming for the sake of argument that the word "trustee" in the conveyance from Sanford to Holland was not merely descriptio personae, but was in fact a conveyance expressed by the word "trustee" to be in trust, then the trust was an express trust. R. S. 1919, sec. 2263. It was not a resulting trust because it did not arise or result by implication of law. R. S. 1919, sec. 2264. It was, if said deed declared at all, or established a trust at all, an express trust. Heil v. Heil, 184 Mo. 665; Hillman v. Allen, 145 Mo. 638; Dexter v. MacDonald, 196 Mo. 373; Thomson v. Thomson, 211 S.W. 56; Crawley v. Crafton, 193 Mo. 431; Price v. Kane, 112 Mo. 419. (2) The alleged trust upon which the lot in controversy was conveyed by Sanford to "T. B. Holland, trustee," having been conveyed, if upon any trust at all, upon an express trust, no resulting trust can arise. It cannot be transferred into a resulting trust merely for the want of legal evidence to enforce it as an express trust. Heil v. Heil, 184 Mo. 677; Hillman v. Allen, 145 Mo. 644; Green v. Cates, 73 Mo. 115. (3) There are no elements of resulting trust in the case. R. S. 1919, sec. 2264. In any event the evidence is totally inadequate to establish a resulting trust. While a resulting trust is one that arises by implication of law, yet it devolves upon the parties seeking to establish it to affirmatively prove the facts and all the constituent elements out of which a resulting trust arises by evidence so clear, cogent and sufficient as to establish such trust beyond a reasonable doubt. Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Hillman v. Allen, 145 Mo. 644; Curd v. Brown, 148 Mo. 82; Pitts v. Weakley, 155 Mo. 109; Heil v. Heil, 184 Mo. 677. (4) The word "trustee" after the name of T. B. Holland, grantee in the deed in question, was merely descriptio personae. Powell v. Morrison, 35 Mo. 244; Coaling v. Howard, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1051; Sansone v. Tie Co., 139 S.W. 778; Trust Company v. Fallon, 91 N.Y.S. 497; King v. Townsend, 36 N.E. 513; Kanenbly v. Valkenburg, 75 N.Y.S. 8; Davidson v. Manter, 89 P. 167; Cowell v. Cole Springs Co., 100 U.S. 55. (5) It is settled law in this State that it is not necessary, in order to create an express trust, that it should be in writing; that it is only necessary that the express trust be proved in writing, signed by the party who created the same. R. S. 1919, sec. 2263; Lane v. Ewing, 31 Mo. 75; Cornelius v. Smith, 55 Mo. 528; Mulock v. Mulock, 156 Mo. 431; Crawley v. Crafton, 193 Mo. 421.

OPINION

Seddon, C.

This is an action originally brought by William B. Sanford (now deceased) to divest defendants of the legal title to a certain described tract of land in the city of Springfield, Missouri, and to vest the same in plaintiff, said William B. Sanford. The original plaintiff having died after the cause had been appealed to this court, upon suggestion of his death in this court, by stipulation of parties the cause was revived in the name of Grady Sanford and F. M. McDavid, executors of the estate of William B. Sanford, deceased. The defendant E. F. Van Pelt is the record holder of the legal title to said land and the other defendants are respectively the widow and heirs, or devisees, of T. B. Holland, deceased.

The petition upon which the cause was tried, filed on March 9, 1918, is as follows:

"Plaintiff states that heretofore, to-wit, on the 23rd day of January 1913, he was the owner of the following described real estate situated in Greene County, Missouri, to-wit: A lot in the city of Springfield, described as follows: Beginning two hundred and thirty-five feet south of the southwest corner of State and Campbell streets, thence west 165 feet for a new beginning point, thence south 132 feet more or less to the O'Day lot, thence west 165 feet to lot formerly owned by Adams, thence north 132 feet, thence east 165 feet to said last named beginning point.

"That said lot was of the reasonable value of $ 1500. That on said 23rd day of January, 1913, without consideration in fact, but by a quit-claim deed with an expressed nominal consideration of one dollar, he conveyed to 'T. B. Holland, Trustee' said land in trust for a lawful purpose. That the name of the beneficiary and the limitations of said trust were not expressed in said deed, nor were they evidenced by any writing at the time. That said T. B. Holland on the 30th day of July, 1913, departed this life without in any manner having executed said trust, and without having in any manner entered upon the execution or recognition of same by any act or deed provable at law or in equity.

"That defendant Van Pelt is now in possession of said land claiming to own same through conveyances from some of the heirs and devisees of said T. B. Holland, but not claiming same by or through any other source. That said Van Pelt at the time he acquired said land had full notice and knowledge of said trusteeship of said T. B. Holland and that said T. B. Holland had no beneficial interest in said land, and had full knowledge and notice of all the facts herein alleged.

"That the other defendants herein are the only heirs and devisees of said T. B. Holland, and that they, although aware of said trust relationship, refuse to recognize same, and have heretofore set up and claimed a beneficial ownership in said land and have by deed conveyed said pretended claim to defendant Van Pelt.

"Plaintiff further states that on account of the fact that the name of the beneficiary of said trust, and the limitations thereof, are not evidenced by any writing, the same is not enforcible either at law or in equity, and the true intent and object thereof has therefore failed.

"Wherefore the premises considered, the plaintiff prays the court for a decree divesting defendants and each of them...