Ward v. Ward

• Decision Date: 16 April 1946
• Docket Number: Case Number: 31395
• Citation: 1946 OK 133,197 Okla. 551,172 P.2d 978
• Parties: WARD, Adm'r, et al. v. WARD, Adm'x.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1946 OK 133

172 P.2d 978

197 Okla. 551

WARD, Adm'r, et al. v. WARD, Adm'x.

Case Number: 31395

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 16, 1946

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR-Review of equity case-Disposition of cause where findings and judgment clearly against weight of evidence.

In an action of equitable cognizance it is the duty of this court to review the record and consider the evidence, and if the findings made and judgment rendered are clearly against the weight of the evidence, this court should reverse, and require rendition of the judgment which ought to have been rendered upon consideration of the evidence and applicable rules of law as to the burden of proof.

2. TRYSTS_ Burden of proof on one seeking to establish resulting trust in land.

In order to establish a resulting trust in land the burden of proof is upon him who seeks its establishment and enforcement, and the evidence must be clear and convincing.

3. EVIDENCE--Testimony of oral statements against interest made by deceased persons held weak evidence.

Oral testimony of oral statements against interest made by deceased persons many years before is the weakest of all evidence.

4. TRUSTS-Establishment of resulting trust by parol evidence-Degree of proof required.

A resulting trust may be established by parol evidence, but the law requires that the proof necessary to establish it should be of the most satisfactory kind. The onus of establishing a resulting trust rests upon him who seeks its enforcement, and before a court of equity will be warranted in making a decree therefor, the evidence must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR--Sufficiency of evidence to establish resulting trust.

In reviewing a judgment in an action of equitable cognizance in which the evidence must be clear and convincing in order to establish a certain fact, such as the existence of a resulting trust, the Supreme Court will weigh the evidence to determine whether the same satisfies such standard of proof and will render or cause to be rendered such judgment as the trial court should have rendered.

6. PARTNERSHIP--Presumption as to ownership of money withdrawn from partnership checking account by check of one partner made payable to other partner.

When money is on deposit in a checking account in a bank, to the credit of a partnership name or trade name used by A and B. and subject to check of either so as to indicate partnership or joint ownership, and A draws a check on such account payable to B and delivers same to B and thereby withdraws money from such account and transfers it to B. there is no presumption that such money so withdrawn continues to be jointly owned, or that A retains or owns a half interest or any interest therein. In such case the presumption is that such money so withdrawn from the bank is the individual money of B and if he uses such money to buy property for himself which he holds and claims as his own, the presumption is that he is the owner of such property.

7. SAME--Presumption as to ownership of money withdrawn from special or reserve savings account of partners by their joint action and transferred to individual account of one partner.

When money is on deposit in a bank in a special or reserve or savings account, as distinguished from a checking account, subject to withdrawal only by the joint action of A and B. so as to indicate some joint interest therein, if A and B jointly withdraw money from such account and transfer same to the individual account of B. there is no presumption that A continues to own a half interest or any interest in the money so withdrawn from such account. In such case the presumption is that such money so withdrawn is the individual money of B. and if he uses such money to buy real estate for himself which he takes and holds in his own name and claims as his own, the presumption is that he is the owner of such property.

8. SAME-Whether realty acquired by partner in own name with partnership funds is individual or partnership property dependent on particular facts of case.

If partnership funds are used to purchase real estate, the title taken in the individual name of one of the partners, the question whether such realty is individual or partnership property is, in the last analysis, one of fact, depending on the intention of the parties as revealed by the use of the property, the conduct of the parties, their agreements, express or implied, the manner of keeping accounts, the payment of expenses connected with ownership, the disposition made of any income from the property, and all the surrounding circumstances the decision of every case necessarily depending on its own peculiar facts.

9. PROPERTY-Presumption of ownership in record title holder who continues in exclusive possession.

Real estate is presumed to be owned by the person in whose name the record title stands, and such presumption is strengthened by the number of years the record title has remained the same, and by the record title holder continuing in the exclusive possession and control and management thereof as the apparently exclusive owner.

10. SAME - PARTNERSHIP - Lack of presumption of joint ownership of real estate purchased by and held in individual names of partners.

Although proof is sufficient to show a partnership between two persons for the buying and selling of cattle and existing over a period of years, there is no presumption of partnership or joint ownership of real estate purchased by and held in individual names of the partners. And where during said period each partner has purchased real estate in his own name, the presumption is that the property is individually owned in the manner in which title is held.

11. SAME - EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Burden of proof on claimant of realty where title long held in name of decedent.

When a citizen of this state dies, holding title to real estate in his own name, which he has so held and managed and occupied for several years as exclusive owner, and another appears and claims an interest therein from the time of acquisition thereof by the decedent, the courts are required to leave the title in the decedent, as the parties themselves had left it, unless the adverse claimant can establish his interest therein by evidence which is clear, unequivocal, and decisive.

Appeal from District Court, Love County; Marvin Shillings, Judge.

Action by Frances Ward, administratrix of the estate of J. G. Ward, deceased, against Blanche Ward, individually and as administratrix of the estate of B. E. Ward, deceased, to establish trust in real estate and to recover a half interest therein and to recover a half interest in the personal estate of decedent last named. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

J. Woody Dixon, of Marietta, and Rittenhouse, Webster, Hanson & Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Will Steel, of Texarkana, Ark., Crawford W. Cameron, of Marietta, and Earl Q. Gray and John M. Poindexter, both of Ardmore, for defendant in error.

WELCH, J.

¶1 B. E. Ward, a resident of Love county, Okla., died owning real estate and personal property in that county. His wife, Blanche Ward, was appointed administratrix. In the course of the administration a younger brother, J. G. Ward, of Texarkana, Ark., commenced this action to establish a trust in the real estate to the extent of one-half thereof and to recover one-half of some personal property from the administratrix.

¶2 At death B. E. Ward owned in his own name a ranch containing about 800 acres six or eight miles northwest of Marietta, and he or he and his wife owned the home ranch so-called, a mile or two north of Marietta, the title standing in the name of "B. E. Ward and Blanche Ward." The persona] property or estate consisted of several head of livestock, but not a large herd, and farm implements and machinery located on the home ranch, and about $3,000 on deposit in the Marietta bank in a checking account to the credit of B. E. Ward.

¶3 Plaintiff's claim was based on the contention of a general partnership alleged to cover all business activities and all bank accounts in several banks in various names, and all property acquired, and including the properties here involved which plaintiff contended were assets of the partnership.

¶4 The action of the trial court in sustaining plaintiff's contentions in full is here for review. Defendant contends the findings are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to applicable rules of law. We must review the record.

¶5 Plaintiff asserted a full partnership from 1919 to B. E. Ward's death in 1939. There is no direct proof of a partnership. That is, there is no proof of a partnership agreement, nor a written document or even a letter referring to them as partners. There is no satisfactory proof as to any of the details of this partnership, as to its origin, as to what each put into it, or the intended sharing in profits or losses, or as to how the brothers did in fact share in the moneys during the several years involved. The proof relied upon by plaintiff consists of circumstances and statements and records of bank accounts and transactions. B. E. Ward was the oldest of four brothers and two sisters, J. G. Ward was the youngest of the six. In the year 1917 or 1918 J. G. Ward, then 16 or 18 years of age, came to live with B. E. Ward, who already owned real estate and a going business in the handling of livestock and the slaughter thereof, and a butcher shop or meat market. There is evidence that B. E. Ward had already made use of "Ward Bros." as a trade name, having been assisted in work by one or both of his other brothers. It was not long after 1918 until J. G. Ward, working for or with his brother, B. E. Ward, also had permission to write and did write checks on the "Ward Bros." bank accounts for business expenses or for his own use. And after J. G. Ward attained maturity, for a number of years,. he and...