Wells v. Wells, 21039
| Decision Date | 11 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 21039,21039 |
| Citation | 116 S.E.2d 586,216 Ga. 384 |
| Parties | W. I. WELLS v. Eloise Parker WELLS, Administratrix. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
L. A. Hilton, Hilton & Hilton, Sylvania, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas M. Odom, Millen, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The exception is to the order of the Superior Court of Screven County entering, on motion of the plaintiff, a summary judgment in favor of the administratrix of the estate of Earl Wells, in an action brought against W. I. Wells. The plaintiff alleged in her petition that her husband, Earl Wells, attended an auction on March 18, 1954, and was the highest bidder on eight lots of land, for which he paid one-third of the purchase price as the down payment; that, at Earl Wells' request, W. I. Wells, his father, the defendant in this action, was named grantee in the warranty deed; that, as agreed by Earl Wells and the defendant, the defendant executed a deed to secure debt to the grantor for $2,665; that Earl Wells paid a total of $2,406.17 on the notes secured by the security deed; that the defendant paid $1,593.83 on the notes; and that the deed to secure debt was canceled of record on May 23, 1957. She prayed that the property be impressed with an implied trust for $2,406.17, plus interest at six percent, for the use and benefit of Earl Wells' estate.
The defendant filed his general demurrer to the petition and his answer thereto. In his answer, the defendant admitted the allegations of the petition set forth above, but corrected the amount he paid on the notes to $1,575.83. He denied allegations to the effect that Earl Wells was in possession of the property from the date of purchase until his death on January 22, 1957; that it was agreed that the defendant should reconvey the property to Earl Wells; and that all funds paid by the defendant were paid after Earl Wells' death. However, he listed the amounts of three payments made by him. All of the dates of payment were subsequent to January 22, 1957. The defendant further alleged that, at the time of purchase, '* * * it was verbally agreed between Earl Wells and this defendant that the defendant would hold title to this property as trustee for Melvin Wells, the son of Earl Wells * * * and after Melvin Wells became twenty-one (21) years of age and upon this defendant being reimbursed for any * * * expenditures * * * he, W. I. Wells, would convey the fee simple title to said property to Melvin Wells.'
Under the summary judgment entered by the court, the property was impressed with a trust for the use and benefit of the estate of Earl Wells, subject to payment to the defendant of sums totaling $1,575.83. Held:
1. There is no merit in the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in entering the order for a summary judgment before the defendant's demurrer to the petition and the plaintiff's demurrer to the answer were disposed of. While Code, § 81-1002 provides that, 'In all cases demurrer, pleas and answer shall be disposed of in the order named * * *,' Code (Ann.) § 110-1203 provides that a summary judgment 'shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law * * *.' In entering a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the trial court found that there was no issue as to material facts alleged, and that on those facts the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, which amounted to holding that the defendant's general demurrer to the petition was without merit. Entering a summary judgment on the pleadings and admitted facts obviated a formal ruling on the general demurrer.
2. Allegations in the petition sufficient to establish an implied trust (Code, § 108-106(1)) in Earl Wells were uncontroverted by the defendant's answer. The defendant did not deny that his son, Earl Wells, paid the grantor of the warranty deed $1,335 as the initial payment for the property, and that Earl Wells requested that the grantor name the defendant as grantee in the deed. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. Sanfax Corp., s. 39342
...party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Code Ann. § 110-1203; Dillard v. Brannan, 217 Ga. 179, 121 S.E.2d 768; Wells v. Wells, 216 Ga. 384, 116 S.E.2d 586; Moore v. Atlanta Transit System, 105 Ga.App. 70, 123 S.E.2d 693, supra; Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 118 S.E.2d 193; Ge......
-
Empire Shoe Co. v. Regal Shoe Shops, 46076
...212 Ga. 284, 92 S.E.2d 8; Hodges v. Hodges, 213 Ga. 689, 100 S.E.2d 888; Lucas v. Bonner, 216 Ga. 334, 116 S.E.2d 548; Wells v. Wells, 216 Ga. 384, 116 S.E.2d 586; Lanier v. Dyer, 222 Ga. 30, 148 S.E.2d 432; Wall v. Wall, 176 Ga. 757(4), 168 S.E. 893. Again, the Civil Court of Fulton County......
-
Zobrist v. Bennison, s. S97A0243
...the fact that one person's money has been invested in land and the conveyance taken in the name of another.' [Cit.]" Wells v. Wells, 216 Ga. 384, 386, 116 S.E.2d 586 (1960). In its grant of partial summary judgment to Bennison, the trial court concluded that the money used to pay down Zobri......
-
Southern Finance Co. v. Glaze, 43368
...Gamma Alumni Chapter etc., 107 Ga.App. 403, 404, 130 S.E.2d 255; Caylor v. Wheat, 210 Ga. 429, 432(3), 80 S.E.2d 688; Wells v. Wells, 216 Ga. 384, 385, 116 S.E.2d 586. We therefore consider the enumeration of error complaining of the failure to sustain a general demurrer to the 2. In the ju......