Wilhoite v. Nelson

Decision Date25 September 1975
Citation319 So.2d 265,294 Ala. 523
PartiesFloyie WILHOITE and Elnora N. Wilhoite v. Leroy NELSON and Florence Nelson. SC 1353.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Sherman B. Powell, Decatur, for appellants.

Julian Harris, Decatur, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

The legal question presented is whether a letter containing an offer to convey to promisee one-half of everything the promisor receives by way of inheritance can be specifically enforced.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Defendants are husband and wife. Plaintiff wife is the sister of the defendant husband. The subject property was inherited by defendant husband from one Molly Terry, the aunt of plaintiff wife and defendant husband. Plaintiffs claim a one-half interest in all of this property on the basis of an alleged agreement contained in a letter, allegedly written by defendant wife in 1956, and also on the basis of an oral agreement, allegedly made by all of the parties. The letter provided, generally, that if the plaintiffs would move back from Chicago to Alabama, to take care of Molly Terry, defendants would help them build a house and would give them one-half of whatever they got from Molly Terry. The plaintiffs also agreed that they would give defendants one-half of whatever they got from Molly Terry.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs moved back to Alabama, built a house on Molly Terry's land, next to her, and took care of her. The length of time they cared for her is in dispute. Some evidence indicates that it was for six or seven years. Other evidence indicates that it was for four or five years. Molly Terry was an invalid the last two years of her life.

Plaintiffs maintain that the letter allegedly written by the defendant wife on behalf of herself and her husband was sufficient upon which the court could order specific performance. The plaintiffs also claim that the oral agreement was enforceable.

Defendant husband denied authorizing his wife to write the letter for him. He also denied entering into an oral agreement. Defendant wife also denied that she sent any letter to the plaintiff to that effect, and also denied the existence of any oral agreement. The trial judge found for the defendants. His final decree, in part, reads as follows:

'* * * The Court is of the opinion that the statute of frauds applies and further that there is insufficient evidence to establish a trust based on fraud. As pointed out in the defendants' brief Manning v. Manning, (Pippen) 95 Ala. 537, 11 So. 46, (56) sets the standard in holding that a mere promise and the breach of that promise is not sufficient to create a trust. There must be some evidence of fraud other than the breach of the promise. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs take nothing and the cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.'

Before discussing the merits of the appeal, we address first a procedural point raised by the appellees. They say that the appellants have appealed from the trial court's judgment overruling their motion for a new trial, and since this was a case formerly cognizable in equity, the cause should be affirmed because the appellants have made no assignments of error with respect to the final decree, but only as to the motion for a new trial.

This cause was originally filed after the effective date of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59, ARCP. Admittedly, under former practice, a decree or order denying an application for rehearing in equity which did not modify the original decree would not support an appeal. Former Equity Rule 62; Whiteport v. Whiteport, 283 Ala. 704, 220 So.2d 891 (1969). The Alabama Equity Rules have been superseded by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. See Appendix II, Alabama Rules of Court, 1975, p. 296. While the validity of the Appendix can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hamaker v. Hamaker
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 31, 1975
    ...that the ruling on the rehearing application is governed by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and cites us to Wilhoite v. Nelson, 294 Ala. 523, 319 So.2d 265. The supreme Court in the cited case applied the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure because the original action and the motion for n......
  • Consolidated Foods Corp. v. Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Bd. of City of Montgomery
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1975
  • Galloway v. Arnold
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1979
    ...220 So.2d 891 (1969); Smith v. Southeastern Real Estate Corp., 273 Ala. 315, 139 So.2d 590 (1962). This court held in Wilhoite v. Nelson, 294 Ala. 523, 319 So.2d 265 (1975), that the Equity Rules were superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure; therefore, the granting or denial of a motion ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT