181 S.W.2d 805 | Ark. | 1944
This appeal necessitates the determination of whether a resulting trust exists in real estate, and also whether limitations, laches, or estoppel bar the enforcement of the trust.
Miss Lorine Lumpkin worked in a bank in Marion, Arkansas, as teller and bookkeeper; and Dr. Otis Harbour was a veterinarian, residing in Marion, Arkansas, but engaged in the practice of his work in Memphis, Tennessee. When they married in February, 1930, she was thirty years of age and he was forty years of age. They lived together as husband and wife until 1942. We will hereafter refer to them as Mrs. Harbour and Dr. Harbour.
At the time of the marriage Dr. Harbour had no property. He had his employment in the stock yards in Memphis (from which he was paid on a basis of services performed), and had a bank account of $291.80; but owed a balance on the engagement or wedding ring. Mrs. Harbour had her position in the bank at Marion (at a salary of $150 per month); owned $500 in bank stock (that paid dividends until after 1936); received fees as notary public (that amounted to as much as $161 at the time of one deposit); owned a house (in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee) from which she regularly received rents varying from $18.50 to $25 per month; and had a bank account of $250 at the time of the marriage; and she owed no debts. So, to the marriage partnership Dr. Harbour brought only the expectancy of earnings, but Mrs. Harbour brought the dowry. *553
Mrs. Harbour continued to work in the bank until after 1936 and her salary was increased to $175 per month sometime about 1934. She was in charge of all of the deposits and accounts in the bank. Since Mrs. Harbour worked in the bank Dr. Harbour entrusted to her the depositing of his money and the making of various bank accounts; and in the period of time from 1932 to 1936 they had six bank accounts being:
(1) Otis Harbour (a regular checking account on which each party wrote checks).
(2) Otis Harbour, savings account (which was closed out and became the Otis Harbour special account).
(3) Otis Harbour, special account (which was used in lieu of the savings account).
(4) Otis Harbour, farm account (in which rents were deposited and from which advances were made to tenants, and in which the rents from the tenants were deposited).
(5) Lorine Harbour, checking account (her personal checking account).
(6) Lorine Harbour, savings account (her personal savings account).
Some of these accounts were opened at different times, but each plays a part in the story. The principal account was the Otis Harbour checking account. In 1934, the parties decided to buy a farm and they looked for a good investment, and soon located the splendid farm of 196.15 acres here involved, and then being sold by the Tennessee Joint Stock Land Bank at a distress price. The deed was taken in the name of Dr. Otis Harbour. The total purchase price was agreed to be $13,730.50. On March 26, 1934, Dr. Harbour paid $1,000 earnest money (by check on Otis Harbour checking account), and signed a contract to pay $2,730.50 in cash and to execute notes totaling $10,000 whenever the title could be delivered. The purchasers were to receive the 1934 rents. On October 15, 1934, the title was approved, and Dr. Harbour paid the $2,730.50 (by a check on the Otis *554 Harbour checking account), and executed the notes totaling $10,000. These notes were secured by purchase money mortgages on the land. Mrs. Harbour signed the mortgages, but did not sign the notes, and did not in any way become personally liable for the payment of the $10,000. The notes were paid on or before March 30, 1936, and all the payments were from the Otis Harbour checking account.
Financial fortune smiled on the Harbours because each was energetic and thrifty; and a prosperous and happy married life could have easily resulted; but it did not. They separated in 1942 in Memphis; and Mrs. Harbour has pending, in Tennessee, a suit for divorce and alimony. We here point out that the divorce action between the parties is pending in another state, and that this case concerns only the alleged trust property in Arkansas. No question was raised in the lower court, or here, as to jurisdiction in this case; and since the "res" (land) is in Arkansas, and since the parties have come into the Arkansas courts, we proceed to adjudicate the case on its merits. Leflar on Conflict of Laws, 26, 36 and 118.
In 1943, Mrs. Harbour filed this suit to have a trust declared in her favor for an undivided one-half interest in the lands and for partition to segregate her interest. Dr. Harbour denied any trust, and pleaded limitations, laches, estoppel and the statute of frauds. The trial court found for Mrs. Harbour and decreed her to be the equitable owner of an undivided one-half interest in the lands, and appointed commissioners to make partition; and from that decree Dr. Harbour has appealed. The record is voluminous and the exhibits are numerous and detailed; but through it all, there is the wife's contention that she is entitled to one-half of the land in fee, and there is the husband's denial of the asserted claim.
To sustain the decree of the chancery court, appellee claims:
(1) That the money which paid for the land was from a "joint account," and therefore the title was *555 joint in equity; and (2) if this court should hold against the "joint account" theory, then, to the extent that the money of the wife went into the purchase of the land — to that extent, at all events — the wife is entitled to a beneficial trust interest in the land. We proceed to an examination of these contentions as well as the other questions in the case.
I. "Joint Account" Theory
Mrs. Harbour claims that the Otis Harbour checking account was a "joint account" owned equally by Dr. Harbour and herself; and that since all the checks, which paid for the farm, were drawn on the "joint account" therefore she is the owner of one-half interest in the farm. This "joint account" theory cannot be sustained as that term is used in the statutes, cases, and books on banks and banking. The Arkansas statute on "joint accounts" is 727a of Pope's Digest, and it is predicated on the fact that the deposit shall be made "in the name of such depositor and other person." Our statute presupposes that a "joint account" will be a two-name account. This statute was discussed by this court in Black v. Black,
But Mrs. Harbour contends that it was agreed between herself and Dr. Harbour that she was to have an undivided half interest in the account regardless of the name in which it stood. In other words, she contends that even if it was not a "joint account" as regards the bank, still it was a "joint account" as between husband *556 and wife. The obvious counter-question as to this contention is: if the account was joint between the parties, and if all of their resources were to be pooled and owned "fifty fifty," then why did they have so many different accounts? Mrs. Harbour worked in the bank and had charge of all the deposits and accounts in the bank. As a bank teller and bookkeeper, she certainly knew that to make a "joint account" so far as the bank was concerned, there would have to be two named persons. She wrote most of the bank deposit slips where the funds were deposited to the Otis Harbour checking account. She had a separate checking account of her own and also a separate savings account. This shows that Mrs. Harbour knew of the distinction in accounts, and that all of the income of husband and wife was not pooled into the Otis Harbour checking account. If she and Dr. Harbour had intended that the Otis Harbour checking account was to be a "joint account," as that term is used in the statute, then she owed it to the bank, of which she was an employee and stockholder, to post the account as "Otis and Lorine Harbour," so that the bank would know that it was a "joint account"; this she did not do. Dr. Harbour admitted that his wife could write checks on his account at any time, but insisted that it was not a "joint account." Mrs. Harbour said that they agreed that it was a "joint venture." Thus, only the two interested parties testified as to this angle of the case; and the actual bank records, and Mrs. Harbour's conduct show conclusively that this was not a "joint account" in law or in fact. The chancery court adopted the "joint account" theory, and on that theory rendered a decree awarding Mrs. Harbour one-half interest in the lands. This decree was erroneous.
II. The "Trust" Theory
Mrs. Harbour next claims an equitable interest in the land by reason of a resulting trust: that is, she says it was agreed between herself and Dr. Harbour that her money was to go into the Otis Harbour checking account; and that they would buy a farm and pay for it from that account; and that to the extent that her money actually *557 went into the purchase price of the farm — then — to that extent — she is entitled to a beneficial interest in the land as a resulting trust. There is merit to this contention.
Of course, no express trust can be claimed by Mrs. Harbour because there was no instrument in writing declaring an express trust, and 6064 of Pope's Digest prevents an express trust being shown by parol testimony. But there are other trusts that may be shown by parol testimony. In Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 3rd Ed., 987, in stating the classification of trusts, it is said:
"All possible trusts, whether of real or personal property, are separated by principal line of division into two great classes:
"(1) Those created by the intentional act of some party . . . which are called express trusts;
"(2) Those created by operation of law . . . — implied, or resulting, and constructive trusts."
Section 6065 of Pope's Digest removes resulting, implied and constructive trusts from the statute of frauds and allows oral testimony to be admitted to prove these. McGuire v. Ramsey,
So, with the parol evidence before us we proceed to see if the resulting trust was shown. In Spradling v. Spradling,
In Kerby v. Feild,
The case of Kline v. Ragland,
Of course, the trust must be established by evidence that is clear, cogent and convincing. Stacy v. Stacy,
While Dr. Harbour testified that he had no intention of being a trustee for his wife, still his testimony affords great support, and only slight contradiction, if any, to the trust theory. Dr. Harbour refused to deny any part of the testimony of A. J. Lumpkin. Dr. Harbour admitted that he and his wife "might" have discussed between themselves the placing of her money in his name; he knew all the time that her money was going into his account, and when he wrote the checks to pay *560 for the farm he intended to use any funds that might be in his account; and he could not deny that some of her money actually went into the purchase of her farm. Finally be admitted that he and his wife looked at the farm together before it was purchased, and that they agreed to build their home on this land; and that, about the time of the purchase of the land they each made a will, leaving all to the survivor. There were other facts and circumstances in the record; and every fact and circumstance supports the contention of Mrs. Harbour that Dr. Harbour is a trustee for her benefit, to the extent that her money actually went into the purchase of the land. The evidence in this case justifies a finding that it was contemplated by both of the parties, at the time of the purchase of the land, that Mrs. Harbour should furnish part of the purchase money and should own an interest in the land corresponding to the share of the purchase money contributed by her at the time the land was bought and afterwards. This is a resulting trust.
It is true that in Remshard v. Renshaw,
It is clear that Dr. Harbour could not have furnished all of the purchase price alone. The total purchase price was $13,730.50; and of this amount $12,730.50 together with interest, was paid in the period of time from October 24, 1934, to March 30, 1936. The rents for 1934 were $991.03 and for 1935 were (gross) $1,915.22. Copies of Dr. Harbour's State and Federal Income Tax Returns were introduced in evidence, and the figures therein are not denied by him. He did not have sufficient income to have paid for the farm. When we take these admitted figures, it is clear that some of his wife's money was used. Just how much of her money went into the purchase of the farm we are unable to determine without the services of an accountant; and that is a matter for the trial court. Since the chancery court did not decide the case on the resulting trust theory, but on the "joint account" theory, (as we have previously noted), we think the better practice in this case is to remand to the chancery court to decide on the record made, and any other evidence subsequently offered by either party, just how much of Mrs. Harbour's money went into the purchase of the farm.
Therefore we hold that to the extent that Mrs. Harbour's money went into the purchase of the farm, to that extent, Dr. Harbour was a trustee for her; and to the extent that his money went into the purchase of the farm he was, to that extent, a beneficial owner; and to the extent that the rents, and profits from the furnish account, and other income from the farm, went into the purchase money, the same should be proportioned between the parties as their respective capital investment stood at the times the rents and other items were received. Mrs. Harbour, of course, has the burden of proving the definite amount of her money that definitely *562 went into the purchase price of the place at the time each payment was made.
III. Limitations, Laches and Estoppel
Having found that a resulting trust exists, it remains only to consider these pleas made by Dr. Harbour against the enforcement of the trust. The evidence shows that after the trust arose Dr. Harbour continued to speak of the farm as "our farm"; that Mrs. Harbour wrote checks for the furnishings to the tenants and received and deposited the rents; and that until 1941 the rents and profits from the land were just as much under the control of Mrs. Harbour as under the control of Dr. Harbour; and that she was just as much in possession of the property as he was; so under these facts there was no repudiation by Dr. Harbour of Mrs. Harbour's beneficial interest in, and use of, the property.
As regards limitations, we find no merit in the plea. It is true that in Board of Education v. Morgan,
"It is generally held, however, that the rule does not apply to a resulting trust which has every element that operates to take an express trust out of the statute and prevent it from running against the trust until after it has been effectually repudiated; and it has been declared that as long as there is a continuing and subsisting equitable trust acknowledged or acted upon by the parties, the statute of limitations does not apply, but if the trustee denies the right of his cestui que trust, *563 and the possession becomes adverse, lapse of time from that period may constitute a bar in equity. Thus, when a resulting trust arises from the purchase by a husband in his own name with his wife's money, it has been held that the statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the husband, and against the wife, at the time of the conveyance, if there is no recognition of the wife's rights; but if her rights are recognized, the statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the husband and against the wife at the time when the husband begins to hold adversely."
And to the same effect see 37 C.J. 908 where it is said:
". . . and the statute of limitations does not run in favor of the trustee of a resulting trust, which most frequently arises where one person pays the consideration for a purchase and title is taken in the name of another, until the trustee disavows the trust or asserts some right to the property inconsistent with it, and the cestui que trust has knowledge of such disavowal or assertion, or, from the circumstances, ought to have learned of it."
As regards laches: the same facts as first mentioned in this section defeat that plea made by Dr. Harbour. In 26 R.C.L. 1365, it is stated:
"Laches cannot be imputed to one who seeks to enforce a resulting trust in real property, where his right to use and possess the same has never been questioned, since his possession is notice to the world of all his rights. A cestui que trust, who avails himself of the proceeds of the fund of which he is the beneficiary according to the terms of a trust determinable at his pleasure, cannot be charged with laches because he does not avail himself of his additional right to bring the trust to an end. . . . The mere fact that a wife who furnishes the money to purchase real estate, the title to which is taken in the name of her husband, does not bring an action against him during his lifetime to compel a conveyance to herself, is not such laches as will *564 bar the action, where they live together upon the property and he repeatedly promises to convey the title to her."
And in 65 C.J. 1027-8 in discussing laches in enforcing a resulting trust it is stated:
". . . there may be no laches . . . as where, during the period of the delay, he, (the beneficiary), has been in possession, or joint possession with the trustee, of the property, or has been exercising acts of control and ownership over the property. Time does not commence to run against the beneficiary of a resulting trust, so as to render the doctrine of laches applicable, until the trustee disavows or repudiates the trust and such disavowal or repudiation is fully and unequivocally made known to the beneficiary."
As regards estoppel: we find no facts justifying that plea by Dr. Harbour. No silence on the part of the wife caused any change of position by Dr. Harbour. Watson v. Murray,
For the reasons herein stated, the decree of the chancery court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to declare a resulting trust in the property for Mrs. Harbour and to fix the amount of her trust interest under the directions contained in this opinion, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
SMITH and HOLT, JJ., dissent.