Schneider v. Schneider
| Decision Date | 05 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | 37815 |
| Citation | 161 S.W.2d 650 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER et al. v. SCHNEIDER et ux |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Noah Weinstein and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, for appellants.
Harry Gershenson and Cox & Blair, all of St. Louis, for respondents.
BOHLING Commissioner.
Equity. John C. Schneider, as an individual and as trustee for Eunice E. Schneider and Lorain J. Schneider, instituted this suit against Elmer J. A. Schneider (his brother) and Lillie K Schneider, husband and wife, to cancel specified instruments purporting to affect the title passing under the will of Emma Schneider to certain described pieces of real estate and known to the record as the Nottingham property, the Oldenburg property, and the Euclid property, to quiet the title thereto, and for other relief. The answer was a general denial. Defendants appeal from an adverse decree; citing as authority Conrad v. Diehl, 344 Mo. 811, 822, 129 S.W.2d 870, 876 [5, 6]; and other cases, to the point that we weigh the evidence and reach our own conclusion upon the review of equity proceedings. The details of the transactions affecting the several pieces of property differ; but plaintiff's underlying theory appears to be that Elmer J A. Schneider was a fiduciary, the agent of his mother in the transactions, and commingled her funds and property with his, and that the real estate was Emma Schneider's at the time of her death.
Elmer J. A. Schneider was called to the stand by plaintiff. His testimony contains inconsistencies and was contradicted in some respects by other witnesses. He, among other things, had been engaged in the real estate business. He handled the affairs of Emma Schneider since he was seventeen years of age in 1918 ('I was handling my mother's affairs when I was seventeen years old that is right'); and continued handling them up to the time of her death, rent collections, buying and selling real estate, handling deeds of trust, etc. Emma Schneider participated in the business transactions. She and defendant resided together. He testified she became ill 'and in the later years I transacted all her business for her.' Emma Schneider died April 11, 1937. Her will was admitted to probate April 19, 1937. We understand defendant was named executor. A will contest was instituted July 23, 1937, which was settled in 1939. She devised the Nottingham, the Oldenburg, the Euclid, and other properties in her last will and testament to plaintiff for life, with remainder over, upon his death, to Elmer J. A. Schneider in trust for Lorain Juliana Schneider and Eunice Emma Schneider, children of plaintiff, for and during their minority, with certain powers, immaterial here, in said trustee, and with the provision that upon each child attaining majority the trust should terminate and title to such child's portion of the trust estate should vest in the child. Witness filed the inventory of his mother's estate. It listed the Nottingham and Euclid properties. Her estate was valued at $ 52,480, and included $ 29,895 in real estate mortgages, $ 234.50 in her individual name and real estate. He testified that in 1918 he had no real estate, would not know without checking it, may have had a lot or so. He started in business at his mother's home; she gave him no money to start the real estate business; he 'started from scratch'; used his own funds, funds borrowed from banks and received from deeds of trust which were sold. He did not know how much he put in, might have a record, or how much of other people's money he put in. He kept books, kept loan cards a memorandum of payments. He kept a separate account for Emma Schneider during the entire period he handled her transactions. He could not give an 'offhand idea' of the total he invested in deeds of trust for his mother between April, 1927, and 1938, or the amount of his mother's money that went through his hands; didn't know whether it was as much as $ 135,000; wouldn't say it was as much as $ 89,950; had no idea at all; would not say that his records revealed that he handled $ 84,000 in first and $ 56,000 in second deeds of trust 'for Emma Schneider' from April, 1922, to December, 1936; did not believe that was correct but did not know; imagined it was fairly large, couldn't say or give any idea at all. He testified he made reports to his mother; that he did not have them, did not know what became of them, and could not recall how many were made or when he made the last one. He gave testimony from which the chancellor could find that he commingled some of his mother's funds and property with his own. He also testified that he did not commingle his mother's funds with his own; that he distinguished the moneys in his bank account; he could not tell how. With respect to a particular account, he testified some of his mother's credits went into it and 'I don't have any idea or record how much of it was my mother's or how much of it was mine.' He testified positively several times that his mother had no interest in the Euclid property; that he acquired the property in 1931 and took title in her name as a 'straw party.' He also testified that his mother might have had money in the deeds of trust on the properties involved in this suit. He admitted that he executed a rental agreement for the Euclid property in 1935 as 'agent for the owner,' explaining he was agent for himself. He testified this property was not inventoried in his mother's estate but his counsel admitted it was inventoried as an asset of the estate, subject to a $ 4,000 deed of trust.
F. J. Kaul testified that he was employed by defendant Schneider in November, 1932, and prior thereto had performed specific services for him; that he handled real estate transactions under instructions from Mr. Schneider; that he knew Emma Schneider, who appeared almost daily at the place of business; that Emma Schneider 'didn't know how she stood' and several times in 1934 and 1935 demanded an accounting by Mr. Schneider; that Mr. Schneider promised to prepare an account, started to prepare one, but never finished it; that thereafter Mrs. Schneider asked for her statement numerous times. This witness testified that a general ledger of all real estate matter was kept by defendant; that he prepared the rental agreement for the Euclid property at his employer's instance and that Mr. Schneider was acting as agent for his mother.
The Nottingham property was once owned by Harry A. Steinmann. He and his wife executed three deeds of trust on the property, to wit: One dated, March 29, 1926, securing their $ 2,750 thirty-six months' note. A second, dated April 29, 1929, securing $ 1,100. A third, dated March 29, 1932, securing $ 725. Each deed of trust was made to Hugo F. Buder, as trustee for Emma Schneider, to whom the several notes were made payable and showed endorsements reading 'without recourse on me, Emma Schneider.' The Steinmanns defaulted in their payments. This matter was adjusted by the Steinmanns executing a quitclaim deed conveying the property to Emma Schneider and Elmer J. A. Schneider and Lillie K. Schneider on March 18, 1933, recorded April 27, 1933. Mr. Kaul prepared this quitclaim deed at Elmer Schneider's instance. The Steinmanns' deeds of trust were to be released and with the notes were to be returned to the Steinmanns. The notes and deeds of trust were never released or returned to the Steinmanns. Mr. Kaul testified that Elmer Schneider informed Emma Schneider that if they could secure a quitclaim deed they might refinance the property and 'get her money back'; and that witness, under instructions from Elmer Schneider, conducted the negotiations with the Steinmanns.
The decree nisi found the Nottingham property to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial