Catron v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa

Error, CATRON, Plaintiff Louise Lora & TRUST BANK FIRST NATIONAL сorporation, TULSA, Oklahoma, a CO. OF of J. estate as Executor the will and LeRoy Catron, deceased, Earl Cat M. ron, Catron, Fred Charles Jesse Donald Catron, Clay Catron and Marvin Defend ants in Error.

No. 40475.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 25, 1967.

Rehearing July Denied Rehearing 31, 1967.

Second Denied Oct.

Farmer, Woolsey, Flippo Bailey, & Tulsa,' Woolsey, Robert J. error. Gable, Gotwals, Hays, Adlcison, John Fox, Tulsa,

Rubin & er- defendants in ror.

HODGES, Justice. Catron, plaintiff, L. instituted Laura defendant, First this suit Co., Tulsa, Bank Okla- National & Trust homa, and estate Executor the will defendants, Catron, M. Le- J. Catron, Roy Catron, Earl Donald Jesse Clay Fred Charles Catron and Marvin Ca- tron, Catron, all the sons M. to estab- J. by operation lish trust of law for benefit in the estate one half of of her de- husband, Catron. M. ceased J. plaintiff The Catron established and Mr. They marriage a common in law through in wedding went a ceremonial parties Arkansas 1952. Both been previously. married Mr. four Catron had marriage, sons his first defendants this action. Catron had Mrs. one son marriage, her first not involved in dis- pute. Mr. and Mrs. had no Catron children years from their union. Mr. Catron 65was death, age at his on December Mrs. Catron was 53. marriage At time of their plaintiff pos- neither Catron nor the assets, sessed but substantial period a sizable estate was at aсcumulated. The estate was valued $286,821.76by appraisal of the executor bank, appreciated and has subsequently $400,000.00. to more than Record value property forming title to all estate except name of Mr. Catron the home- joint tenancy which was in stead plaintiff. It is that Mr. pos- clear Catron judgment, aptitude keen business an sessed investment, making a talent for money. gainfully not em- Mrsi Catron was ployed during marriage, and contributed little, any, if direct service to business husband, but it endeavors of her dis- puted that she fulfilled her marital duties $300,000.00 and the four to about the de- entitled responsibilities as a wife $25,000.00 to about are entitled defendants ceased. will, while, each; the terms of the under will, left one third Mr. Catron his Under $133,333.00, be about her share wife, plain- to his estate of his abortt would receive each defendants estate to di- tiff, thirds of his and two $66,667.00. sons, de- his equally among four vided homestead, Ownership trial fendants. The this case consumed seventeen $25,000.00, days. at vested parties presented valued over Both numerous joint tenancy ar- plaintiff by including virtue witnesses friends and relatives provided that Catron, Thе will rangement. Mr. and Mrs. and business associ $1,000.00per month receive should of Mr. ates Catron. Both the portion 'of, estate held life from the testimony defendants introduced compiled by, in trust for her. elected public and exhibits certified take the devised to attempt accountants in to determine provisions of the than her will rather statu- sources of income trace use'of tory share which would also have been one funds from various individual and (free trust). third of the estate bank accounts of Mr. and Mrs.' Catron. plaintiff approved inventory general records, Because of a lack of either .lost by appraisement the the Executor of estate destroyed, including or bank statements and the tax Later plain- checks, estate returns. the cancelled particularly the for the n conclu that her years tiff concluded share of the estate through from 1945 probably provide insufficient to be sions of parties the accountants for both $1,000.00 per her of for income month to a is considerable extent based -on con the remainder her life. then insti- jecture of She speculation. evi'dence'pr.e- The asserting tuted this suit that one of half sented was significant! in conflict to ex a being the estate was in trust her held for tent by and the inferences drawn the par operation by law be and should set aside ties from the in' evidence not conflict'are n n (cid:127) ' ' ¡"J =>'(cid:127)! her to as the owner thereof. She further V: : irreconcilable. that contends the half the be- estate The , trial court concluded (jie' evi- longing charged to her be husband should dence was establish’ n to insufficient $80,000.00 lost in oil ventures useless by operation alleged by of law as plain- the $12,000.00 and with in the gifts by made tiff, ownership the tti'e property deceased to his sons without her consent. comprising the estate vested in the'de- the ceased, In addition to claims one-half own- judgment be ren- should ership portion and that Mr. plaintiff ap- Catron’s dered for The defendants. peals charged $92,000.00 estate be should to this court from- judgment expended in gifts, oil ventures and the order of trial court overruling her n , plaintiff right continues to assert the re- . motion for a : trial. . . new . ceive one third of the remainder of appeal On contends that estate, trust, under the terms of ¿. beneficiary she is the trust arising The plain- Catron’s will. net effect of the operation of law an undivided óne-half ap- tiff’s claims is that ‘ she should receive interest her proximately three fourths of husband in name his virtue’ of the fact the estate in addition to homestead. purchased this plaintiff’s The defendants contend husband with their assets. 60 O.S. entitlement is limited the es- to one third of 136(3). According plain- th.e homestead, tate provided as in Mr. tiff, may trust benefit be con- present Assuming Catron’s will. value resulting,¡trust either a a sidered to be or approximately $400,000.- of the estate plaintiff’s position is is constructive trust. that she good one who trust was is resulting

A defined favor of con- it, Okl., is Enochs, 1106: entitled and who science consider- Gammel v. estate in “A resulting property is trust arises where disposed of, convey- legal ^[*] ed in ^[*] equity beneficial owner. appears ed, transferred, the intent hut or Hornor, Cassidy See to the effect same v. of the dis- the terms or inferred ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‍from is Ed Okl. 208 P. Edwards v. accompanying facts and position, fromor wards, 477; Peyton v. P. circumstances, inter- beneficial McCaslin, Okl., 417 P.2d 316. enjoyed with or be go est not to is she concedes that a is title. legal case a has the establishing burden of facts grantor implied or results favor trust, giving rise whether it is con a real equity deems to be the own- whom trust, resulting structive trust evi er.” clear, unequivocal, that is dence deci trust is resulting con foundation Akers, sive. v. P. Boles 116 Okl. law Both under common sideration. Moody, Staton provisions of 60 Okl., Bank, Davis National presumed result in favor of a trust In reviewing the decision payment is made person or for whom equitable trial court in this case taken in when to real title cognizance, we will examine the record has held This court the name another. weigh the evidence determine if the proof property was cases where in a number of presented by conforms to conveyed to consideration required standard, but we will not reverse by, belonging money assets furnished the decision of the trial court unless it wife, to, trust results favor that a his clearly against weight of evidence. See wife, absent evidence circumstanc of Gaines, 619, Gaines v. P.2d 207 Okl. Menden contrary intention. showing a es Evans, McCrory v. 192 Okl. Walters, Okl. 157 P. hall v. 823. Sanders, 169 Okl. First Nat'l Bank v. London, 889; Guyer v. 187 Okl. to Review of the record fails Pfinning, Wilhelm v. any imposing a disclose basis for construc 321, 129 P.2d 580. in plaintiff. tive trust favor of There imposed to A trust is constructive fraud, duress, is no of evidence abuse party prevent unjust where the enrichment confidence, by or other misconduct Mr. acquired it in title some holding to plaintiff his dealing Catron in and Dike Mar unconscionable manner. the trial court found. so The basis tin, said: 204 P. this court plaintiff’s claim is that half one “ * * * funds invested Catron in Mr. All instances of constructive equity present comprising belonged estate to may referred to what trusts hand, fraud, defendants, her. The on the other either actual con- denominates plaintiff that in contend structive, acts omissions assets of including no own, her fiduciary one and furnished none obligations. If of the con violation of readily legal property, sideration It title for party obtains to apparent prevail, plaintiff that only by must violation con- fraud relations, fiduciary unequivocal in but establish clear evidence fidence or manner, portion that she in fact (she so did furnish a other unconscientious alleges equitably hаlf) he retain the one consideration for cannot another, really property comprising belongs equity the estate which above, As theory out its deceased. seen carries owner- evidence a double impressing support equitable trust, ship, legal, by resulting than rather upon in constructive trust. constructive The Mr. Catron and Mrs. Cat- interest of examination of to an turn now We ron, Company any, Beverage if in C-F estab- upon relied facts 2, 1945, par- January to a third was sold on behalf. resulting trust lish that, $80,000.00. alleges ty Plaintiff at when began prosper Mr. Catron time, the net worth of Mr. Catron M. Catron known a business he started J. each, $50,000.00 herself was in excess of syrups and Laboratory, produced which equal. approximately de- and was The drinks. in soft concentrates used flavor estate fendants assert value also period Mr. Catron During $100,000.00 solely exceeded owned manager and employed as assistant Subsequent Mr. Catron. the sale of Beverage the General plant foreman of company, beverage began Mr. Catron Flexner R. Company, Charles owned explore possibility real in- еstate Flexner, wife. G. Marion Tulsa, petition vestment Oklahoma. The nor Mr. Catron neither Prior to 1941 1946, plaintiff, alleges assets, plaintiff possessed substantial having full confidence the business abili- ac- Mr. Catron had by August, but Catron, ty of Mr. transferred most of Au- On $26,000.00in cash. over cumulated him funds to invest their mutual ben- Flexner 1942, Mr. Catron and Mr. gust apparent, efit. therefore, It that both companies agreed merge their agree and the defendants operated under they a business into possessed Mr. Catron full control and dis- Company, Beverage name C-F cretion over the funds assets of the es- soft drinks at wholesale. bottled and sold early tate great in 1946. The increase in this until continued business Catron Mr. in value of the years estate came operated profitably. and it too 1946, 1947,and 1948and to a lesser extent plaintiff contends that she was By fall, 1949, the value of es- in both equal partner her husband $300,000.00. tate exceeded great This in- copies partner- companies introduced crease in period wealth coincided with that effect. Defendants ship agreements to community property pre- when the law of partner- there was actual contend that vailed in this state. effect of this law assigned plain- ship Catron but subsequent and the repealing gov- statute paper secure tiff an interest on in order to disposition ern the of this case. income advantage federal reduced there because gained by splitting income tax Prop mandatory Community Revenue provision in Internal no erty approved April Act of this state 'was allowing at time a husband Code 28, 1945, days effective after and became 90 joint return. on to divide income 26, 1945, wife April adjournment of date In- partnership agreement, the Despite the enacting Legislature. See Okl.Sess. recog- refused to Okl.St.Ann., ternal 1-18, Revenue Service p. Laws §§ equal partner and plaintiff as an nize the repealed 51-82 note. The Act was on §§ Defend- third. reduced her interest to one 1949, p. 1949. Okl.Sess.Laws June per- established' ants further classify 1 and 2 Act Sections of the little, com- any, for either if service formed separate property property as that owned for pany capital contribution and made no separately by either the husband or the wife alleged interest. her prior adoption property of the Act and all devise, thereafter gift, either con- parties presented additional Both descent, compensation personal or as for plaintiff’s issue of flicting evidence on the injuries. pro Section 3 of the Act then However, we partnership alleged interest. : vides part- purported whether the need not decide hus- acquired by property either “All mere sham nership was a was valid or marriage and after during band or wife purposes. In either event the tax Act, except that the effective date of this prevail in action. cannot this n whichis separate property compensation either income and received no defined, injuries devises, as shall be deemed gifts, hereinabove no or inherit- community property ance common from (including source her first wife, during husband) marriage each shall be Mr. earnings with inter- vested an undivided one-half Catron. These unidentified therein; est and all the Mr. Catron became effects assets of communi- ty, income, possess аlong profits husband and at the time wife the rental may realty, be re- from the sale be dissolved shall in- other garded as un- come gains common effects or received the Catrons this contrary prov- period. less satisfactorily ed.” defend- plaintiff and both Accounts for have concluded judicial decisions Previous expendi- attempted trace income and ants that, except specified in Sections accounts various bank tures from Act, profits from income and 2 of all period during the Catrons source, separate including the whatever in- The rental success. without spouse, communi became of either realty, come, profits from sale ownership equally in ty assets with vested sources, the unidentified the income from Page the wife. v. Sher the husband and Catron Mr. man, Okl., v. First Turner separate property of were alleged Okl., Co.,

Nat’l Bank & Trust an extent commingled to such combined and Swanda, Swanda Okl. traced could be that none this Howard, Crane changes and mutations through its various case, 243 P.2d 998. the Swanda However, plaintiff did at- in form. approval cited the following court separate funds purported tempt to trace community property: definition property ac- nonhomestead into seventeen able quisitions Catron. She con- a statute “In absence of portion consid- only show small community property includes trary, improvement of purchase or for the eration spouse, dur- property acquired either trans- in four property involved toil, talent, energy or ing marriage, pecuniary in- actions. established She faculty productive fruits and remaining thirteen transac- terest either separate property of profits evidence,- her .total Accepting tions. Tex.Civ.App., Logan, spouse. Logan v. $7,500.00, while less than investment was 515.” S.W.2d to Mr. Catron or the amount attributable Most of the identifiable . income $250,- more than sources was unknown from through 1949 was Catrons The evidence further established 000.00. prop- profits rentals and on the of real sale purchased parcels four each of the Tulsa, erty in other only Oklahoma. plaintiff’s improved, pur- in part, with the of income was a small identifiable source ported separate subsеquently funds partnership Mr. amount from interests of proceeds been and that the could not sold plaintiff short Catron and duration realty now be identified. The numerous Company in the Tulsa Reo and the Terrell transactions, intermingling in of funds doubt, Bottling Company, There can accounts, missing bank the lost or various decisions, in view of the above cited records, coupled with indiscriminate use community property. all this income was regard Mr. funds without to source $150,000.00 approximately There was also improving in real acquiring Catron es- in income from unidentified sources tate, tracing resegre- make the task of period this of time. While source impossibility gating assets a in this manifest uncertain, this is at- income it must be pertinent case. It is that'there tributed to observe to- Mr. it is Catron inasmuch' as undisputed very that Mrs.- Catron had' little plaintiff is no ever evidence ob- jected commingling in of assets small bank account of less than $300.- husband, 00, at- manner or she was in Mr. Catron’s name as was title' tempted alleged separate prop- acquired to hold her thereafter until the erty apart community. from the date of his death. 83, stаtute, repealing The § it is assumed if Even en- provided a husband and wife could owned separately Catron agreement, specifying ter into a recordable 1945, in assets $50,000.00 in approximately re- rights of each and amal merged became so assets these Act, ei- Community Property or that pealed of con community property gamated with bring determination ther an action for could value, separate siderably greater they reach rights unable to of these if were identity. Colvin v. See property lost its provided: then The statute agreement. an Under Colvin, 744. “ * * * must circumstances, the assets all of record failure to make and The property. community to be file such agreement, be considered or to such an 41 C. expressed year as follows in (1) rule is and record

This action within one thereafter, 490: Husband and Wife course judgment in due § J.S. years (3) any within three event traced “A must be consideration Act, shall from the effective date property acquired to overcome into or title or wife whose bar presumption in favor of the com- record, appear interest does community munity. separate and Where separately possession who is not confused, blended, property have become any claim interest property, from commingled, pre- the whole will be per- (3rd) third community property sumed to be unless any therein. acquiring interest sons community component compara- effective years (3) After three from ” * * * tively small. Act, proceeding no action or date of this Property, Community Am.Jur.2d, in 15 And brought any to es- shall be character 21, it stated: § tablish or recover an interest repeal- upon the Act based the terms of intermingled separate property is so “If ed, previously interest has been unless the property that its identi- community record, pro- established of as hereinabove ordinarily be- ty lost, the mass entire p. Laws 2.” vided. § community property, unless comes community is inconsiderable.” interest comply did -not Tarver, provisions effect: Tarver mandatory See to same the statute aff’d, Sup., Tex.Civ.App., protect preserve S.W.2d her interest S.W.2d 780; Mueller, 144 fact, Mueller v. property. had taken community she 90; Cal.App.2d prop 301 P.2d Lawson v. no action of sort to establish Ridgeway, Ariz, 253, erty suit, 233 P.2d rights prior to this filed on Jan Mumm, A.L.R.2d uary Wash. Mumm suit was commenced This Funiak, statutory Princi beyond 2d de eight years more than ples Community Property, 4A period specified by Legislature our Thompson, Property, 1952, p. 328 repealing Real instituting statute for actions (1961 Upon ed.). repeal the date rights determine n Act, Property sep Community is therefore barred arate purport assets Mr. Catron and the recovering com interest separate ed munity assets of property ownership the had lost and thereof identity among greater their exclusively Catron, the assets of vested the Mr. owner community the aggregate Sherman, Okl., ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‍and the became Page of record. 341 P. v. (cid:127)community property. time, ; At that title to (majority dissenting 2d 270 opinions) and properties, except the Wells, Okl., homestead a and Hiskett v. 351 P.2d 300. testimony alleged that oral of oral for rule asserted no basis plaintiff has against interest made subsequent deceas acquired statements

ownership property is the prop- persons ed weakest sort evidence. the than fаct other Okl., Estate, In Fullerton’s joint- re acquired owned with assets erty Ward, P. de- Ward Having v. ly Mr. Catron. by herself and Furthermore, credibility the joint 2d 978. such has forfeited that she termined weight witnesses and value to be basis the left ownership, without she given conflicting or testi inconsistent has half she furnished one establish that mony primarily are determina purchased matters for consideration Smith, Thompson tion the trial court. above, considera- such after As seen Edwards, Okl., Corp. C. I. T. the existence of tion is essential to l., 418 P.2d 685. There is con in her favor. Ok siderable evidence to refute the existence attempts es alleged partnership. In wills execut statute repealing application cape 1947, 1949, 1951, ined Mr. Cat- orally agreed Catron asserting that Mr. expressly ownership ron declared that equal partner be would that she argues then She venture. estate real Tulsa exclusively in vested him. These declara part profits from half of that one significant tions in such documents would not property, separate nership were be compelling type seem to the most not assets, therefore community аnd were proof that agreed Mr. had not to. Catron repealing stat of the the terms subject to general partnership arrangement to ac if there were agree. Even cannot ute. We quire real estate benefit of and earn the income partnership, plaintiff. It is also clear that Mr. Cat- be deemed ings therefrom ron continued to assert exclusive owner contrary. agreement absent an assets ship the property until the date his 3, supra. The Act, Community Property In death. several conversations with a plain that the no evidence contains record trust officer of the executor bank commenc com agreed that the Mr. tiff and Catron ing approximately eight prior months his. apply to not munity property laws should death, Mr. Catron that all stated investments real estate from earned income property, homestead, other than the belong half of hold one that each would ed himto should included his es property. On the con earnings as Further, that, prior tate. the fact to insti Catrons, tax returns of trary, income suit, tuting plaintiff approved commencing reflected general inventory appraisement belonging profits on sales rentals returns, estate and the tax reflecting estate event, community. evidence In ownership property solely the de in partnership between the Catrons admissions, ceased, must be considered convincing. There real estate vest against position litigation in this ar such an written evidence of was no the trial court so found. testimony There rangement. plaintiff that and relatives of the friends the deter (1) conclude We property on Mr. Catron referred to was- court that there of the trial mination or stated that as '“ours” various occasions plaintiff and partnership between (plaintiff) and me.” belongs Louise “it acquire realty is not Catron to Counterbalancing such comments were (2) weight evidence the clear persons prop to other statements Community repealing the statute “I own it.” These state erty is “mine” or plaintiff from claim Act evaluating Property bars ments are not conclusive. comprising part ing an interest support of plaintiff’s proof in nership recognize of the deceased. allegations, the estate we must

273 recovery repudiation her a clear there must be is also harred plaintiff The repudiation brought trust general the and the must be application by virtue McGann, knowledge. ac- to her McGann v. to this year limitations statute of five 939; London, Guyer implication 169 Okl. 37 P.2d v. trust establish a tion to 187 we O.S.1961, Okl. 875. However 95(7). law. § agree repudiation are that in unable to the in that plaintiff admitted these two the instant case does not meet will, prepared in her his Catron showed First, requirements. the repudiation of year, that she read of that November purported clear and relationship trust was following clause: imagine It is difficult a more- definite. “ * * * fact, prop- in in all truth and positive repudiation of a trust than written standing in name of Lora erties all of the declaration the trustee that Catron, my wife, and all Louise property belongs him bene- that the standing jointly our ficiary Second, interest it has no therein. my property, my said wife names plaintiff fully clear aware that was therein, it has interest whether has no repudiation. express reason Her has purchased prior pur- to or been been refusing sign proviso for the will subsequent enactment chased disagreed was that she with the clause State; Community of this save Law stating her all husband owned except joint- is held homestead which property. Pfinning, In Wilhelm ly by survivorship pass and which shall Okl. this court stated: my my prior death wife should occur not com- “The of limitations did statute wife; my being death of it plaintiff until became mence to run further intention of this Will rela- aware of a violation of my amount receive total wife shall London, tionship. Guyer v. manner Will shall The attempted P.2d 875. devise aggregate exceed the amount interest in the land would standing of all in her name value beneficial ordinarily constitute breach the difference between such amounts trust, notice breach my property, and one-third But in this start the statute. the devise may standing be put plain- case not sufficient was my name wife on books rec- ” * ** (Emphasis tiff notice. on ords, manner be other shall supplied). by my administered Executor the same extent, and to the manner same with full seen, the in- As there can no doubt in disposition power though him as plaintiff put on no- stant case my was in the name of wife. repudiation purported in- tice of of her * * *» terest her husband’s will. proviso There was to this will contends Next acknowledge, was to af- not run the statute of limitations should fixing signature, her that she had read and a wife against a husband favor of agreed provisions with the contained in could have done (plaintiff) “all she the will. The testified that she contrary, sue him a divorce.” On sign proviso refused to her name to the married disabilities of the common law disagreed because she clause stat- state been removed women have ing ownership that exclusive was vested fully competent to sue and wife Upon her husband. reading foregoing person injuries either to husband for will, clause in her husband’s the statute of O.S.1961, or to her against limitations commenced to run her. Courtney, Courtney Moore, Moore v. plaintiff correctly Okl. contends rela- As 158 P. 578. to set the motion statute in 274 plaintiff

tionship provides joined no defense to hus the fact that in leases and band, conveyances, 1947, is that the statute of' prior the better view as she had done run bar a wife’s claim should not limitations will have caused hеr to believe that against her recognized her husband coverture. See her as an owner of 388, Estate, Cf., property. 155 Kan. 125 the Leidig Okl., In re Crawford’s Hoopes, v. 594, 354; Howard, 159 N.C. 288 P.2d P.2d Graves v. 402. 565; Ann.Cas.1914C, Dunning 75 S.E. As no action to establish a trust 884; Dunning, v. 300 N.E.2d N.Y. 90 years commenced within five Cassas, Wyo. v. 73 276 P.2d Cassas plaintiff date that the clearly informed 456, 464, A.L.R.2d 197. be 69 We rights Mr. Catron that she had no support lieve this conclusion finds ownership, her recovery 12 barred expressed previous reasoning deci two O.S.1961, 95(7). § court, Pfinning, sions of this Wilhelm v. An additional contention of the London, supra, Guyer supra. While plaintiff erroneously the trial court it was determined in both cases that testimony excluded her concerning transac action the husband did not amount tions with the deceased under terms repudiation clear of his wife’s interest statute, of the dead man’s 12 property, implication the clear these According plaintiff, 384. to the de decisions is that statute of limitations fendant waived the restrictions of stat would have run wife object ute failing portions her repudiation of her interest been effective. testimony about certain transactions the deceased eliciting certain testi Finally asserts that mony from her on cross Avis examination. subsequent the statute was tolled v. Hopping, requesting conduct of Mr. Catron her In re Estate, Dearborn’s Okl. signature on leases and of sale which deeds reply, the defendants assert caused to be “lulled inaction.” The into they had a objection continuing evidence failed repudiation to show that the plaintiff’s testimony specified plaintiff’s interest was ever with testimony plaintiff upon exam cross qualified, drawn or but reflects that responsive ination was not and was strick conduct of Mr. Catron was consistent with en from the supports record. The record his declaration that had no position Further, the defendants. we rights ownership property. in the Sub- have proof examined the offer of in the sijquent wills the deceased contained instances allegedly where statute was ownership similar provisions; exclusive waived and conclude that the excluded evi property purchased title to all afer dence materially have affected homestead, than the solely other was taken the rеsult Therefore, this case. in Mr. Catron’s name. It was also conclu action of the trial court in excluding this sively established that it widely was the ac testimony would not be reversible even error cepted custom for join wife if it is testimony assumed that the should executing husband in leases and deeds Byrd been have McKoy, admitted. regardless of sale actually of whether she Williams, Bedwell v. possessed any rights ownership Okl., 330 P.2d 359. property. purpose joinder of this wife was to facilitate transac argues also questions tions eliminating as to home fact signed that she certain mort notes and rights stead and title prob examination gages gives her ownership interest Patton, Titles, lems. See 397, 398 Again §§ agree. we cannot Ex (2d ed.); Powell, para. Real'Property, pert testimony was introduced to show that Flick, Practice, Abstract Title & it was the practice lending universal (2d ed.). circumstances, In these institutions in require that area sig- upon instruments During marriage wife these the Catron, the her to Mr. nature upon employed, and One gainfully leases deeds sale. was not as experts, vice-president of separate а the exec earnings did not accumulate ac- these or bank, a that he had had quire testified utor name in her own as she had dealings Mr. with of business right number to a do under our married women’s including on negotiation the of loans O.S.1961, 4, 5, Catron 32 15. 9(3), statutes. §§ that, best He real estate. stated removing legislation But the addition to been knowledge, the had not of his the common married law disabilities of present negotiations the for these during women, the make good statutes of this state loans, be had her to that he not considered provision wife for a who chooses to fulfill property, the and that he an owner of the more traditional role homemaker. of the signature, required in accordance her duty the primary pro- The husband has to practice banking industry, be of the support ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‍throughout her vide for contin- It is cause she was Mr. Catron’s wife. marriage. O.S.1961, of the uation 32 §§ question real loans in clear estate troubles, are 10. If there marital participation made without were active they apart, provision live the statutes make reliance her and without on for her maintenance. 12 O.S. сredit, re and that she never been has 1284; O.S.1961, 11. 32 see, § § pay any quired anything on the loans. divorce, the has In case is a court there paid in full All notes have been power prop- divide and distribute Catron or his estate. Such evidence erty may equitable. just be 12 O.S. provides on decreeing no basis for prede- 1278. should If husband § plaintiff. property in favor of the her, por- entitled a definite cease she is Davies, Cal.App. 419, Phelps P.2d 14 v. of his and to the homestead tion estate 922; Serota, 455, 189 Serota 20 Misc.2d v. he makes a will dies intestate. whether Wyo. 260; Cassas, N.Y.S.2d Cassas v. 44; O.S.1961, As to 69 A.L.R.2d 187. Catron, plaintiff, has her Mrs. received point case consideration cited spouse. having entitlements as While Phelps factually Davies is v. similar well-supported assets in she no except controversy, the instant throughout marriage and received one her position of the husband and the wife third estate (in trust) of a sizable employed language reversed. terms of her husband’s will. addition court’ well conclusion summarizes our has she and furnish- received homestead case: ings $25,000.00 at valued more than expensive automobile. us, only “In сase before not did part pay no of the consideration plain It not that the asserted land, nothing for the but he had capably perform tiff did not her household paid it, appear which to have facts responsibilities duties her as a wife justify con- inference during her But to Mr. Catron. gave him clusion his wife or intended ordinarily joint this does not entitle her to land, give in the him interest ownership way upon that his credit was relied expressed aptly The rule is coverture. cap- purchase. making The entire following quotation re Marsh’s from In purchase ital which enabled Estate, 125 Mont. 459: her made was furnished the wife from “The that a common law rule wife owes * * * separate funds, facts duty to her husband attend to upon property, he lived with her household duties and to for the ad- work he-signed mortgage and that cover- husband’s vancement of her interests was ing part purchase price, not of-the are changed by Married Women’s ' * n * controlling. * n *'*.” ‘a Act. Those services which petition $80,000.00 her husband not create for wife owes do lost in ven- oil * *” gifts interest in his estate. tures her a and the to the defendant sons сharged should be to Mr. interest Catron’s See, Johnson, Ky., addition, Johnson The plaintiff concedes Miss., Cox, 255 S.W.2d Cox v. that if the belonged totally Ciufo, So.2d Ciufo Misc. deceased, rights have not infringed been Pittsburgh v. Bank 60 N.Y.S.2d by the oil by gifts ventures the to the Purcell, 286 Pa. 133 A. Wilcoxon sons. Carrier, 620. v. W.Va. 53 S.E.2d harmony previous We conclude that This rule is in with deci failed has prove court that services existence a holding opera- sions of this of by tion by pre alleged, of law a her but rendered wife to husband are that the evidence presented gratuitous sumed without ex and the fully and law of state this consideration, pectation judgment sustain the ex of absent an of court. trial press contrary. Judgment agreement Andrews affirmed. English, v. 200 Okl. JACKSON, J., IRWIN, C. Payne Gilmore, Okl., J., V. 140. C. v. DAVISON, and LAVENDER and McIN- recognize We in divorce JJ., ERNEY, concur. proceedings and certain cases of intestate wife, by succession statutory virtue of en BLACKBIRD, WILLIAMS BER- actment, becomes rights entitled to certain RY, JJ., dissent. property acquired by joint industry dur ing 12 O.S.1961, coverture. BERRY, (dissenting): Justice 213(2). circumstances equitable which, proceeding This is which the cited statutes applicable, are trial, at the conclusion the court stated: performance of customary a wife’s duties during coverture is sufficient entitle “At the conclusion of the evidence provided the benefits by judgment Court render these statutes. will de- Estate, In re ; 86 Okl. ground plain- Stone’s 206 P. 246 fendants on the Tobin Tobin, not, case, by 89 Okl. has tiff evidence in the P. However, these statutes are applicable not demonstrated her cause of action in this dispute clear, as this cogent, case neither convincing involves nature of divorce nor intestate required judgment succession. evidence that’s See Jones * * * Farris, granted to be P.2d 344. in her favor. it’s question presented just whether, clear, here is cogent convincing not the legislation, absence of type a wife is entitled to evidence the Court would joint ownership property acquired require go dur into this detailed mass of ing coverture virtue performing complete those records picture and draw true duties that she owes to her as a partnership that may or —I think result relationship. possibly marital occur, We hold did but difficulty of that she is not. proof To through hold otherwise would plaintiff, no fault of be to return this state through perhaps law of com even concerted ef- munity property by judicial fiat. deceased, This we fort of the by the loss rec- decline to There rightful power ords, do. is no that a proof failure on behalf of incorporate this court to into the laws is indicated Court’s of this state system features ruling. of a prepare I findings will fact abolished Legislature heretofore our law, you conclusions of if desire. involving far-reaching considerations of ****** public policy. making “I’m judgment bare on the By virtue disposition case, of our amount, evidence, failure of the overall we not need allegations picture, consider not the high quality that’s neces- sary Supreme Court decisions 1659. The evidence conclusively showed clear, cogent, unequiv- convincing establishment of a partnership plain- perhaps you pre- ocal. I acquisition think do have a tiff’s therefrom, of funds which ponderance. preponderance forcefully mere negates findings and con- enough. cases like this is You can clusions of the respect. trial court your exсeptions make record and are al- that all property As concerns the claim lowed.” (emphasis supplied) community property, became it is asserted supporting opinion evidence my It is objected to commin- never clear, cogent sufficiently plaintiff was assets, attempted withhold gling judgment convincing; and community. separate weight clear affirmed declaring premise This basis for My disagreement the evidence. even if there assets were however, from failure majority, results mingled these so became statutes and recognize apply own our considerably greater of that value which, opinion, in are determi- my case law separate identity lost its this, result of As a native the issues. required all considered com- assets to be legal decisions, prior declarative our munity property. the definition of Under trusts principles concerning Act, community property contained in during coverture, be- acquired jointly rights O.S.Supp.1945 (32 seq.) et sections conflicting inconsistent. come (repealed S.L.1949, p. the Act 1) acquired by no either opinion I the main As understand the party prior subsequent either imposing to effec exists for premise that is no basis tive date of Act fell within such defini there is no evi- constructive because And, confidence, further, tion. decisions our constru duress, fraud, abuse of dence of Act, ing Community Property clearly in his the husband or other misconduct establish that premise non-manag is the estate dealings plaintiff. This ing spouse was a estate. Davis’ Es vested rec- effectively trial court’s rebutted Comm., tate v. Oklahoma Tax their conduct of ognition that deceased’s And, 644, 246 P.2d advantage 318. under Act joint undue an affairs reflected spouse present, vested interest plaintiff. Evidence as to taken of the community Page one-half produced the original partnership, which Sherman, Okl., In P.2d 270. view the entire Tulsa deal- funds which financed conclusion, of these decisions the that the upon ground ings, is disregarded it separate identity assets their so had lost whether unnecessary to determine aggregate prop became tax partnership a sham for was valid or erty, that, is unfounded. The conclusion purposes. parties sepa if it be еven held assumed the The record execution a cer shows rate assets in these were so com partnership tificate of fictitious mingled identity sup as lose their is not to operations and that thereafter business ported by ac the record. Defendants’ conformity were on therewith. carried plaintiff’s countants corroborated evidence might The suggestion partnership showing parties these held assets pur have been created a sham as tax each, $47,000.00 plus joint approximately poses foundation, legal lacks for the reason $14,000.00. assumption accounts No special concept partner of a there is required And, this fact. establish ship purposes opposed tax ordi conclusion wholly accord recogni fails to nary partnership. family A partnership for tion to the unbiased of witnesses evidence purposes applica tax is measurable rules who knew and discussed Catrons’ busi family partnerships general. ble to Com endeavors, patterned ness their own missioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbert son, operations. 337 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. affairs after the Catrons’ repudiation directly no evidence deceased’s' conflicts with reached

conclusion Whitley, qualified. Boroughs trust ever was withdrawn the law stated destroy are There obvious answers Okl., cit which cases above argument. force ed, the trial Had all of which should overruled court presentation believed deceased’s further conflict our case law. avoid repudi unequivocal 1947will an constitutéd is stated The further conclusion trust, ation which limitations started interests protect her failed plaintiff running plaintiff’s claim, the issue Act, requirements compliance with would have been .closed the cause de showing exist- recording instrument itpon that terminable basis alone. agreement. parties’ or renewal of ence posi- argument is the further only by failure There be sustained This can joined in execution cogent and un- tive recognition evidence accord instruments, continu- deceased the continu- reflects evidence which biased name, indica- subsequent title'in his own dealings to take ed business course of ed than nothing more tive of accepted con- custom complying was attempted to secure the deceased requirements facilitate title and to cerning will, plaintiff’s agreement a. by elimi- transaction consummation to acknowl- terms of which upon might problems which arise nating edge property, jointly n anticipated title examination. Whether title names, standing parties’ destroy problems ¡suffice to examination separate plain- property in which deceased’s instruments, the fact verity of..formal no tiff interest. The refused that, undisputed evidence was remains sign agreement. Up point to such this to mortgagees .trial, various at time o.f recognize there been has a failure exist- upon the finan- liable considered relationship; However, trust ence by the is the cited of rule consti- and extent of the as to what application that our have no unless statutes may jointly acquired.property ob- tutes be the case involves divorce intestate suc- or Estate, Okl., served in In re Keith’s 298 Cursory that deci- cession. examination of 423, parties together wherein the lived inapplicability section sion disсloses that of days prior being killed three to the 213, supra, upon another determined during army Money service. which had ground. Moreover, specifically this' Court army fol- pay to deceased from accrued pass upon question declined to the whether jointly lowing marriage held to be the 1278, supra, apply should to an interest § acquired property. body the In the of upon resulting It an trust. based asserted opinion stated: this Court appears Farris, provides sup- supra, that no recognized that the it is statu- “Once port the that statement our statutes tory proviso question pertains here to in application except have no in cases involv- common, in the of or estate nature ing divorce or succession. intestate that; community, property of because .rule, patent inapplicability the nature, it wheth- makes no difference quoted Estate, 125 from In re Marsh’s any particular er wife contributed the has 239, Mont. that a serv- industry, wife’s to physical, effort or mental or joint in- during marriage ices acquisition, coverture create no its and that a valid estate, apparent. terest in only requisite the husband’s the is the to existence is estate, This in is best the fact that the evidenced such an it will be seen Montana, state, proviso applies a dower there statu- the one no to an estate like is tory here, authority es- for a trial court in involved the same as to other divorce wife, prop- tates, widow, the con- action to divest the where the as husband of marriage nothing tangible acquired by their time of tributed estate’s ‘industry’ respectively through gift, thereafter them de- accumulation descent, held, contrary A in- further sense of the word. vise strict ‘by joint industry phrase be ar- terpretation of said statute would of husband during discriminatory, coverture’ bitrary, and without valid wife means * * * each, industry a husband in the law. Both and wife foundation recognized sphere marital public policy dictate his or law and ”* * * activity, pursue and not that both must interpretation. calling.” jointly business or the same ac- recognize property Our statutes quired by joint industry parties to a Thompson, Thompson In acquired jointly property and is proceeding P. a divorce involved O.S.1961, subject disposition 4969, R.L.1910, as such. application Section now O.S.1961, Upon basis paramount ques- 1278. The § § .these without ex- statutes we have declared property tion concerned division of name., by joint ception property acquired in- the title to stood in the wife’s dustry during is parties coverture case, many respects In similar jointly acquired property. I am unfamiliar present appeal, the court stated wife, declared a case has regards property married statute performance whose efforts consisted of persons sepa- falling within two classes— customary rela- duties of marital property spouse property rate each tionship, acquire interest in fails accumulated the business side of property during accumulated latter, coverture. marriage. In relation we said: “ * * * Stone, P. Stone v. This latter character of to construe 84 O.S. Court occasion conception property, very similar R.L.1910, then Section community particularly proviso therein which states, being regarded as held disposition concerns ownership. by species of common This issue of coverture when there itself, by the it is shown statute where states, marriage. syllabus pertinent This ‘acquired by speaks part: parties during marriage, whether jointly par- “It title either both of said purpose of section

* * * question power and provide general rule of No will ties.’ one dissolving duty the mar- descent ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‍when first of the court sentence prop- riage the common thereof is read connection with relation divide * * * above-quoted allows proviso interpretation erty, fair and statute the give go beyond this and would be as follows: the court to Provided acquired party either under certain circumstances property all cases where the is by joint industry portion separate property the the and wife of of husband issue, during coverture, power a divorce court and there is no other. of The the go separate property of the whole estate shall to the deal with the survivors involved, death, the rea- spouses at is not here property whose if of said the hus- (undisposed by will) property that the awarded remain of one-half son go separate property; it was property of of band was not shall heirs marriage as acquired during the relation husband and one-half to the heirs wife, industry judgment according right a result of to their wife, representation, truly in the phrase, the husband one and the ‘That in earning eyes and ac- property acquired all where the law cases is by property. notion joint industry cumulation of new of husband and wife being in the during coverture,’ property title property to the includes all by conveyance not or contracts by owned at the reason of husband or wife wife that it was her with the husband shows never own a dollar’s worth of property rejected must he The husband could accumulate separate property all-sufficient reasons. The stat- several from its usufructs and negatives dispose ute the idea that the rec- will original itself to others the prevail.” accumulations, ord lands and all wife title remedy. might would be without She Tobin, In 213 P. Tobin v. farm, labor on the children bear again applied Court construed Sec- spend a practical life of serfdom with no R.L.1910, tion now 12 hope any property aсcumulating she provision particularly .the second own, could call legally claim an property acquired dealing with statute interest therein. jointly during marriage, title stood whether “ expressed in the name both. Court ‘The have of either or here views authority stated property approval division contem- than no less an plated by contemplated just Pomeroy, statute Professor an as stated ar- published ac- reasonable division of ticle written him quired by parties during marriage. (1894), Reporter West Coast quote we which as follows: it Therein said that was in no. sense we “ ‘ “All have the decisions which dis- alimony equitable an when this Court makes community property cussed nature of property jointly acquired division agree theory; in stating this fundamental economy ability, industry their business property, falling within the life, married which acquired separate property, definition of acquired law jointly considers as accumula- after the labor either of the And, tions of the husband and wife. wheth- the wife is nevertheless or of granted er divorce is to the husband or acquired deemed the labor to be wife, рrovision law is the same ’” spouses.” both the acquired jointly as to all —the parties equitable are entitled division. my opinion the end result It In that case attention was called to the abrogation of our stat- announced is rules fact factors to be considered in- judicial prec- utes, of our and destruction acquisition prop- volve the fact that acquired by joint property involving edents erty may “economy, be due to wife’s it community. this reason marital For industry, sturdy virtues, frugality and absolutely required that all decisions stay been a have home and which have defined accumulations, guard constant Keith, supra, joint industry, delineated n n n >> decisions, must and innumerable earlier specifically if we are to avoid Turner v. First Nat’l overruled Bank & Trust Co., Okl., jointly respecting quoted complete in our law 292 P.2d we chaos Laughlin Laughlin, acquired property. 49 N.M. page at 1018: in the ex- error inheres further One “ relationship with- only pressions concerning the ‘The of a assets at community. prin- A inception labor, skill, settled industry

its marital are sup- by text and ciple law, expressed spouses. talents of The com- decisions, portеd by involves violation munity property, our owns no never could relationship which any, theory own of the trial the confidential court, This rule and wife. if the exists between husband business carried on is farm- may result from ing separately lands is that constructive owned of one or both fraud, or spouses. If a at actual constructive husband the time of fraud, independent owned, equitable principle say, a acre thousand confidence industry there violation of required time, farm that where is a all his Trusts, C.J.S., fiduciary relationship. 89 operate, talent Trustees Trusts and et seq.; Bogert, Martin, 471; Dike v. (2d Ed.) § Schafer, 163 1106; 103, Lewis v. P. Travis, 175 1048; Davis v. Okl. Rule, 72; DeMoss 52 P.2d Okl. 594.

Okl. relationship between nature highly confidential

wife is of such ability influence, exer undue very same, fact implied from cise Thomas, 27 relationship. Thomas v. 1058, L.R.A., 113 P. Okl. 109 P. Mann, Okl. N.S., Mann v. Doak, 207 Hamburg et al. v. P. . relationship P.2d 510 pre confidential, the law

being highly so parties another act with one

sumes faith be will

absolute confidence each interests, neither other’s

ful dealing precautions when

need take reached

the other. The conclusions absolutely require that the

rules announced cases, upon these based

cited others

principles, specifically. should overruled respectfully

I dissent. also known as

Guy KARAKER, Kariker, Guy Plaintiff in Error,

The UNKNOWN AD HEIRS, EXECUTORS, MINISTRATORS, TRUS DEVISEES, TEES AND ASSIGNS OF Minnie KARAK also known ER, as Minnie De Kariker, ceased et al., in Error. Defendants

No. 41056.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 1966.

Rehearing May 31, Denied 1967. Rehearing

Second Denied Oct. notes obligations,^evidenced cial solely upon plaintiff’s basis knowl- .standing cer- mortgages signed, she edge claim, proposed of deceased’s will sole deceased took properties tain .which .to conclusion reached is that this constituted to be title and which.are recognition of decreed repudia- deceased’s definite year tion of the trust which 5 stat- set plaintiff’s claim If running against ute of limitations the’ that her claim. conclusion Ó.S.1961, 95(7),.be- 12 barred under § was proposed will, by- deceased existing Repudiated the cause deceased had sought plaintiff' agree to" that all have n 'Stand,- urged respectfully it is is. property individually that his she Blaydes’,Estate, supra, re¡ other that In rights should waive her ’therein under the specifically import must be similar cases of law, simply secure execu effort'to expressive of overruled since no longer tion of a A contract under the void law. law State. surviving right to widow ah has absolute n (cid:127) participate estate, husband’s but has non-applica- The conclusion relative property ,12 no interest in the the other’s until statutes, 1278 bility of our death; nothing hence there 'is which can ¡213, O.S.1961,- consti- as to what and 84 disposed be Blaydes’ contract. In industry re acquired'by joint property tutes Estate, 558, A con a coverture, new and during announces -of¡-law.. tract which has purpose for its disrup- the destruc -Even more startling -rule tion right a granted is law void law the fact is tive of our own decisional Estate, against public policy. Blaydes’ declarative, In re rule, consti- of what a . upr injected acquired, property, is jointly s tutes law-upon .thp- question- conclusion, basis of The further relation into our authority foreign- is running against-plaintiff, able without over- of:the-statute . is upon- ruling prior, bottomed decisions. controlling the declaration there 279 recog erty jurisdic property behalf. It is determined wife’.s acquired by require, tion the jointly statutes nized as where title marital the, statutes, supra, not only, is is in name under the husband’s prove in a case the same wife made be measured contributions tests trusts, confidential gift. proof breach were not Absent involving a such hereafter, stranger this Court relationship. Thus, wife held to a to the title. questions And, upon in interesting Bing it is note that called to decide will be Bank, upon acquired ham jointly v. Nat’l volving Mont. it .recognized of action 113 A.L.R. basis of what form cause statutes, supra, jointly applies Montana minority a because of takеs. Under rule special acquired will consist statutes. marriage by efforts Johnson, (Ky.) The case of Johnson v. spouse recognized in his or her of each cited, arose 255 S.W.2d also likewise activity. Thompson v. sphere of marital Johnson, in a state. dower Both P. Thompson, Okl. Stone Eckhoff, (Ky.) Eckhoff v. 247 S.W.2d However, Stone, 33, 206 P. 246. Okl. 374, that that a services court stated wife’s trust, aside establish or to set suit a prop husband in procuring which aid the fraud, the conveyance ground on the erty therein, give the wife no interest be joint acquisition fact that resulted type cause her are services of. “ * * * economy, spouse’s industry, fru which constitute consideration valuable sturdy virtues, been gality and which have statute, Kentucky meaning ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‍within guard stay to the home constant judgment. which controlled the court’s ” * * * longer accumulations respectfully It submitted that au- Tobin, will be considered. See Tobin v. support cited thorities do not conclusion P. 884, innumerable Okl. prevents stated. Time elaboration of following the rule. cases discussion, cases or citation of our decided Farris, The, Jones destroyed by holding. true basis conclusion, support

Case Details

Case Name: Catron v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Apr 25, 1967

Citation: 434 P.2d 263

Docket Number: 40475

Court Abbreviation: Okla.