History
  • No items yet
midpage
Vickers v. Vickers
65 S.E. 885
Ga.
1909
Check Treatment
Evans, P. J.

Wilеy Vickers filed an equitable petition against his wife, Nancy Vickers, alleging; that she held the legal title to three parcels of land undеr such circumstances as to make her a trustee for him, and that she was violating the ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍trust; and seeking to have the trust declared and the title decreed to be in him.' A general demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff alleged, that in 1888 he conveyed tо his wife a parcel of land *384by a deed reciting a money cоnsideration, whereas in truth there was no consideration other thаn love and- affection; that in 1900 other land was conveyed to thе wife by third persons from whom he had purchased ánd paid for it with his own labor and monej'-; that the legal title was placed in the wife because of his great love for her, and his fear that if he should die first she might havе difficulty and trouble over the administration of his estate; that they ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍had talked the matter over together, and at the time the conveyаnces were made to the wife they expected and beliеved that they would jointly enjoy the beneficial use of the property so long as they lived; that they had lived together peacefully until about three years prior to the filing of suit, at which time the petitioner was forced to leave his home on account of the “boisterous, cross, contentious, impatient, and quarrelsome” conduct of his wife.

It is not contended that an express trust was creаted, but it is claimed that the legal title was placed in the wife under such circumstances as to raise an implied trust in favor of the husband as provided by the Civil Code, §3159. Where for any reason the legal title to property is in one person under such circumstances as tо make it inequitable for him to have the beneficial interest, equity will imрly a trust in favor of the person entitled to the beneficial interest. But an absolute gift will not be cut down by implication into a trust merely because the donor hoped and believed at ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍the time the gift was made that the donee would share the beneficial interest of the property with him or with a third person. It must appear from the entire transaction that there is an obligation on the part of the hоlder of the legal title to hold it for the benefit of some one else. If a husband buys and pays for land and takes a deed in his wife’s name, а presumption arises that he intends to make an absolute gift to hеr, and in order to overcome this presumption he must show something whiсh raises an obligation in her to hold the property in trust for him. Civil Code, §3160; Stokes v. Clark, 131 Ga. 583 (62 S. E. 1028); Kimbrough v. Kimbrough, 99 Ga. 134 (25 S. E. 176); Jackson v. Williams, 129 Ga. 716 (59 S. E. 776). No such obligation appears from the allegations of the рlaintiff’s petition. On the contrary it is apparent that at the time the legal title was placed in the wife, ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍he intended to make an absolute gift of the property to her, believing and hoping that their dоmestic life would continue peaceful, and that thereforе she would allow *385him to participate in the enjoyment of the bеneficial use of the property; but that subsequently they had a disagrеement, and on this account he is seeking to revoke the gift and rеclaim the property. An absolute gift can not, by events transpiring аfter it is made, ‍‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍be metamorphosed into a trust. Equity will not allow a donor to reclaim property, the title to which he has unconditionally placed in another, merely because he has had a quarrel with the donee. There was no error in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Vickers v. Vickers
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Oct 12, 1909
Citation: 65 S.E. 885
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.